what I find funny is that some, like kapedani, goes on to compare a prototype, unpainted and without any RAM coating to a finished F-22.

just by applying paint you’d get a lot smoother surface than that T-50 shot… not talking about any RAM coating

actually, the article states that they put into practice in real flight (in a two seater) what they learned in one day in the simulator…

it, basically, undelines the used-friendly interface of the rafale (more or less, you could read that “any guy knowing to fly will manage to do soemthing with it with only one day training”)

if you look at the “corridor” between engines, it was a convergent/divergent profile. maybe that, with engines’ thrust on boths sides it acts by providing some additional thrust? it may improve high speed performance (supercruise?) while not really hampering the stealthiness so much (front RCS is probably good, and directly from the sides, it still remazins to be seen if it’s really so “ugly” )

well, it has some similarities…

but there’s ont big difference: in the 60’s, there were still many aircraft manufacturers capable of building a new aircraft in a reasonable period, and how many are there today?

with aircraft service time lenghtened to several decades, the manufacturers left are only a handful (regrouped into 2-3 societies, basically, and some made no fighters for decades)

the same would apply if we brought rafales, i dont see your point

actually, no.. you’d get spares and all the know how to maintain them… which F-35 customers won’t have

oh the good old days, when the rafale was designed as a low level bomber, the position of the air intake was to shield it from radar from above, as several plans of that era were
how things have changed in modern designs

so, because its intakes are looking downwards, the PAK-FA is a low level bomber too?

but not being able to maintain it yourself is a definite flaw…. what if you go to war and your supplier estimates you shouldn’t? or simply has ties with your enemy of teh day? look at argentina in 1982. they bought aircraft but the antiship missiles remained in france. when they started sinking UK ships, Uk asked the french not to deliver and they didn’t.

what if the US decide not to support your aircraft while you go to fight a war? no more air support, no more air superiority with the lovely shiny (well, not so shiny in reality, but you get the picture) and COSTLY toy you bought from them… I’m not even talking about putting new stuff on it or modifying it, but simply maintaining the aircraft.

All that effort and throw it away?

The US buy a foriegn plane? And people think us (UK) buying FRench is a strange concept…!!!!!!!

actually, the way it goes, cancelling the F-35 should result in using developed techs for improving other aircraft, while, at the same time, make an RFP for a “affordable” striker… something in the line of the F-16 (only better, of course) which would be cheap (compared to competition), on the schedule and have good performance because it uses stuff that’s available, not reinvent everything and pretend it will be affordable