have you ever heard of electronics miniaturization and moore´s law?

Let alone additional empty space designed in with future growth in mind and the replacement of existing systems by newer ones. One wonders how so many goodies has been integrated into the teens, if that logic is applied. Of course there are limitations.

f-35b
~300

So it rolls at the F-35’s promised roll-rate at 300 degrees per second. It apparently tops out at Mach 1.6,
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/07/i-flew-supersonic-barely-at-th.html

You left out this bit:

The simulator is for demonstration purposes only. It is not intended to accurately simulate the F-35’s flight and handling qualities.

no, i was being kind on the rafale for 190, its 150-225 max and 15-30 aoa depending on load
f-35 200 and 55 was loaded, havent seen unloaded stats or max are
the f-35a is going to out turn and out accelerate a f-16 by a wide margin
pulls more g and takes less time in acceleration

Maximum roll rate of the Rafale is 290°/sec, though this is usually restricted to 270°/sec in the AA FCS mode and limited to 190°/sec in the AG FCS mode. This is in 1 g condition, with heavier loads/higher AoA the roll rate decreases.

And for the chart, fine LM marketing. Would have been nice to come up with some more details and data to verify the charts.

Operating costs are tricky, it’s the same as with aircraft costs! Most numbers floating around the internet are quoted out of context. You need to know how these operating costs are calculated and therefore what is included. Otherwise you’ll end up with an apples vs oranges comparison as Opit pointed out.

I seriously doubt that a Gripen will cost just 2500 $/h to operate if you factor in all variables! Even the same type of aircraft can cost more or less to operate depending on the customer! Operating an aircraft itself is not just about paying for the fuel to fly, it’s about procuring and maintaining all necessary ground equipment to operate that aircraft, it’s the personal to maintain, fly, the aircraft which has to be paid and running a unit costs even more, you need suppliers, personal managers, mission planning etc. How often do you need to inspect the aircraft and what is done in such a scheduled inspection? How often are parts exchanged, how expensive are those parts… How intensively are you using the aircraft? How often will you upgrade it over its lifetime and how extensive and expensive will those upgrades be? There are countless factors you have to take into account and if everything is factored in you can believe me that 2500 $/h misses a lot of the things which are necessary to operate an aircraft! If you exclude things like costs for the ground equipment, personal cost etc. then you can arrive at such low values, but it won’t be the complete picture and is subsequently misleading when you try to assess the real costs to operate an aircraft fleet.

The achieved thrust on the bench is not relevant to the aircraft the engine is fitted. F100 turbofans has been run up to 32500 lb on a test bench back in the 90s, that the engine kept to be rated at 29100 lb is telling and the most likely reason for this are service life/maintenance considerations.

@Arthuro,
yes the separate OSF format is the TV presented, SAR images are separately presented as well and as you can even see in the global punch video there is a separate RWR format as well and from first hand I have learned that there are dedicated SPECTRA formats. That doesn’t mean that those data aren’t included in the main tactical display. But there are situations when separate formats can be useful to further assess the situation. If every single detail is presented on your main tactical screen the information starts to overlap and it becomes to unclear. Let me explain this with an example, your tactical screen shows tracks incorporating data from all sensors, these are the fused tracks which give you the overview about the tactical situation. If you are now threatened by multiple hostile radars (SAMs & a/c) the tactical display may not differentiate where the threat emitters are and even if, the number of tracks display next to additional information (lethal zones, flight plan, sensor coverage etc.) may quickly overwhelm the pilot. On a separate defensive display the pilot receives an at the glance awareness of threat emitters from a less crowded display format. Equally in an attack situation where you want to sort targets a dedicated attack format allows you to zoom in and sort targets, while the main tactical display provides you with the full overview about the tactical situation. To many information on a single display can harm your situational awareness.
With regards to the pilots, I personally don’t put to much fate in their opinion of aircraft they have never flown them self, sure they can observe the one or other characteristic/detail when flying with or against them, but I think that their expertise in that area is often overrated. Test pilots are often better aware, not just by their experience, but also by their better technical understanding of how things work. The average airforce pilot knows how to fly his aircraft and how to use its systems, it’s not necessary that he knows how this or that system works on a technical level and significant differences in how things work in different aircraft make it almost impossible to fully understand how another aircraft works, without experiencing it yourself.

@Arthuro,
the question is even if there were such “briefings”, what was the content and to which extend were information/details exchanged. My experience is that it is a very basic introduction which could be done by any halfway informed enthusiast as well, with the one or other detail not known to the public. I wouldn’t put to much fate into foreign pilots claiming things about an other aircraft. You would be surprised how little many pilots know about other aircraft than their own and even their own is in many ways often a mystery to them;)

Edited:
have to check something next week.