Hoping to be included in the “several posts on last page leaned dangerously close to making this a coherent and worthwhile topic” on#63 post, allow me some point: I’ve cited meteor because its the heavier weapon that can be carried by EF semi-conformal pylon , same applies to Amraam or another that can fit: what reduces RCS is the virtual elimination of the pylon not about the missile dimension in itself.
Picture posted by GarryA in #49 gives you the idea.
Worring however to the perpendicular duct of such a missile fall IMHO on the “stealth, stealth and stealth” syndrome running amok around some posters from the other side of Atlantic.
What increase the RCS of a jet duct are the propulsor blades moving, something you just have NOT on a Ramjet.
Add that to see the interior of the Meteor’s duct ,one should have to be at the very same quote and straight in the front of it as an even minimal angle would get it covered.
To see a missile under the body of a Typhoon of even a Flanker you have to be at a much lower quote, not just a pair thousand feet and directly in the front i.e. a place no one would like to be.
I repeat, the use of RCS have to be tactically convenient to make sense, it a mean to an end not a question of national pride or worse a male reproductive organ measuring contest.

IMHO you are. Common sense vs “eyeball markI forum level integrated joint RCS measurement apparatus”

FYI, Both those aircraft’s O&S comparison (SAR) includes manpower costs.

Interesting. TY.

It doese not give it ubiquity.

The trolling is simply constantly trying to redirect discussion to Rafale on this topic. We can keep talking on the Rafale topic in the meanwhile.

Because there are much funnier parts in Denmark atm. their GAO even said that some of their DM officials underscored (rigged the competition) the sustainment costs…

https://jyllands-posten.dk/politik/ECE9995212/danmarks-nye-kampfly-til-milliarder-kan-ikke-loese-opgaverne/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

stop the dumb insults. You are ridiculous.

Did i call you dumb? I guess i forgot.
Take the time to read the whole document instead of trying to lecture above topics you only marginally know, and you will see that 3 times more expensive is not MCO (and CFPH) but scheduled maintenance, and that is relative to previous plane like super etendard or mirage 2000. NOWHERE it says that Rafle CFPH or mco is three times higher than M2000.

Anyother dumn not uneducated BS argument or flame topic?

(i) EPM (entretien pràgrammé) is just a part (55% for forces globally) of “MCO” (maintien en condition opérationnel) you are biased (and trolling), as usual. MCO (sustainment) also contain mil man/hours (40%) and 5% else. Of course a Rafale is more expensive to use than a SEM!!! (and double of a M2K)!
(ii) 950 men are for overall SOUTEX that will also contain barracuda submarine for aussies etc. (for example Rafale demo team is soutex). The document states that “SOUTEX” export help) activities should be budgeted by itself. Why sunken cost???
However, you know this report is political and advocating for a 2% GDP for defense no?
Finally, the very document you quote

trois millions d’euros dans le cas du Rafale, ce qui induit un
coût d’heure de vol très supérieur.

3 millions / year… afaik in 2016, the averae flight rate was around 280 hours/plane… 11 000 euros/hour… Ok, that is EPM and i do not know the part of EPM in MCO of Rafale. So, lets stick to 14500 euros/hour MCO?

Better have a look at Cour des Comptes (GAO) of Loi de Finances.
https://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/publications/le-maintien-en-condition-operationnelle-des-materiels-militaires-des-efforts
https://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/documents/28074
Around 14500 euros.