one could arrive at such conclusions via comparison. which is typically how we arrive at conclusions of what is "best" . we compare them. If I am going too fast for you my friend, I can find ways to help.
I do not know how you can say things like:
How do you measure "seriousness" again? is that somehow quantifiable? not only is it a stupid emotional appeal, it simply does hold up under its own logic. The Greeks are buying F-35s and Rafales. The Israeli's don't operate any Rafales, nor do the Pakistans for that matter so I guess they are not a serious threat. the UAE is buying 80 Rafales to India's 36 Rafales (excluding the navy for a moment) so I guess the UAE is just more serious compared to India? What if the Indian navy had bought Super Hornet? would the Indian air force be more "serious" than the Indian Navy? Rafale is still a small fleet in a big Indian air force so are they not serious? shouldn't they be replacing the Flanker MKIs? or are Flankers serious too?
Speaking of serious, if one wanted to actually look at what aircraft operated to a real war it would probably be F-16s, Mig-29s and Flankers. The last 2 especially recently, and I will note India has more Mig-29s and Flankers.
If one wants to make some kind of scale of "seriousness" then they are welcome to it but the scale should at least make some sense. UAE is more likely to go war than Pakistan? I hate to tell you this my friend but a lot of middle eastern air forces are not all that serious. they exist so the princes can have a hobby and they can show off once or twice a year. It is simply not believable that buying Rafales suddenly means an air force is serious or makes an air force serious and I notice that many air forces rarely rely on the Rafale alone. do you actually believe that the years long struggle to get the Rafale to India meant the Indian Air Force was not serious in the meanwhile?
attributes are quantifiable as well, you seem to "forget" that part. and more to the point its not a matter of 1 or 0. System with bugs don't mean "doesn't work" and the Rafale has bugs too darling, don't let them fool you. No system is perfect. The engine has to be replaced more often than was hoped, its annoying but its not the end of the world and a small price to pay for what is offered. I hate to tell you this my friend, but everyone poops. all aircraft have problems even Gripens, the idea is to have fewer problems. The Rafale has 2 engines, so you get to replace engines more often. Twin engine fighters are like that. its what is called a "trade off" rather than declaring that the Rafale "doesn't work" for example we understand that each aircraft has its own unique issues.
My friend you can not keep using this excuse however it is a bankrupt model. Imagine i had a friend from India and she said "The Indian air force is the worst thing ever, I served in it for 10 years and its a joke. its a mistake"
Could I then take what she says, post it here on this forum and then step back and say "its not me saying it! already admitted by the Indians"
this is much like your previous "USAF says, but its not me saying it, but the USAF is lying when they say it this time because I say so" incident from earlier
The F-35 production opinions vary widely. you are again taking one sample and applying it to the whole. Some say production was too fast, some say too slow, some say it was a good pace but needed more spares support. It can go on forever because there are pros and cons. some say it has created too many "mistake jets" others say that the "mistake jets" were critical to getting the production going to get to the rate things are now and operational squadrons needed to be begin transitioning sooner rather than later.
its pretty clear that with the F-35 one can seek and find just about any opinion they please from world beating ultra-fighter, to the greatest boondoggle in human history and every example in between, to say nothing of US politics in the F-35 which is of course highly political. even Donald Trump had opinions on the F-35. You can "shop around" and find what you need easily enough.
I agree on this for the most part which is exactly what I am saying; The US has insisted on endless computer solutions. once upon a time declared aircraft operationally ready in various ways without the JSE for decades and will do so with the F-15EX, and we will not require any other aircraft already in service to pass JSE. , but someone had the "bright idea" that the F-35 should be tested in a simulation that is so complicated they can't even make it capable enough to test the F-35 so we are now stuck harvesting the seeds we have sown. The Australians are just declaring Full operational capability. The US is more stuffy and bureaucratic.
my point is that if the F-35 was held to the same operational standards as the Rafale and nearly every other aircraft out there (including the Gripen) it would have been cleared operationally long ago and we wouldn't have to hear people crying about "prototype" jets and "still in development" here we should have done it like the French! the second the F-35 could take off and fire an AAM we declare it operational (Rafale F1) and then spend the next 20 years fixing it, instead of spending 20 years fixing it and the declaring F-35 operational. I am saying my friend that again here is just a matter of perception. The perception of the Rafale early on was that it was struggling to get sales and some had given up on it entirely in terms of exports.
this is how we get into a strange world where you keep telling me we won't have a real F-35 until 2030, but the Rafale works, it just needs basic SEAD/DEAD and should get it by 2030. meanwhile the "broken" and "not working" and "Prototype" F-35 has SEAD/DEAD from the start.
the US created very high standards for the F-35. everytime it fails to meet them its declared a "failure" but then when compared to other aircraft it does very well often much better. The F-35 has better readiness numbers than a lot of other aircraft. Not Gripen of course, but you understand.
it wasn't a glitch in the FBW. herciv posted the report and then tried to say the failure was in the FBW without knowing how to read. (we are hoping herciv learns to read soon, the report was simple and straightforward, but he struggles) F-35 already flying in "real world" conditions and has been for years.
I hope you can read.
The report itself says this is the first time in over 600,000 hours of flight that such a thing has occurred. if the pilot stays further back and avoids the wake turbulence the entire crash is avoided. that is not a FBW problem, or an aircraft problem. that is a pilot problem. When the way the pilot handles an aircraft leads to a crash, we do not blame the aircraft. A working aircraft does what the pilot says, for better or worse. Rafales crash too my brother.
all aircraft fly with restrictions the F-35 is no different. Growlers are not supposed to fly in lightning either. most aircraft are advised to avoid lightning when possible as it is especially those with sophisticated electronics. a Rafale can pull 13G but they are still operationally restricted to much less for longevity and safety reasons. All aircraft are like that. the game at play here is taking things that all aircraft struggle with and then painting them as unique to the F-35. The Rafale has operational restrictions I can assure you, ask any of the pilots who decided to take the Rafale "off roading" because they failed to keep the Rafale within its landing limits or worse.
Confidence, another intangible emotional appeal from Mr. Merit. it would seem that mass producing prototypes and the huge list of 17 buyers means there is actually a lot of confidence in the aircraft. 150 built a year is "low confidence" I would be interested to see what "high confidence" looks like. its funny how you decide to interpret things. before you say "but America!" most of the competitions featured other American options to pick from besides F-35s so they could still buy American, and not buy F-35s, yet they always bought F-35s?
what happened to the 126 Rafales that were supposed to be ordered BTW? loss of confidence?
Neither the Rafale of the F-35 are exactly world beating in terms of readiness and ease of matinatince compared to things like Gripen. The numbers for both don't look all that dissimilar from here in fact once one actually dives into the various numbers. the difference is the F-35 has a reputation of being difficult and the French simply don't mention it:
This is much like the "Expensive" F-35
yes let us compare.
36 F-35 6.25 billion dollars (swiss)
36 gripen E 4.7 billion dollars (brasil)
36 Rafale 8.7 billion dollars (india)
The great thing that I learned about the Rafale after the cancelation of the MMRCA contract is that the F-35 was the bad kind of massive cost overruns and broken promises and the Rafale was the good kind of massive cost overruns and broken promises.
