You know? At least we can talk.

There is no point in me bringing my American nationalism to a technical discussion and beat my chest. Tarzan fashion when the point of the discussion, is to learn from each other. As for French nationalism, so what should I fear from it? has much of which to be proud and I expect Frenchmen to express it in their writing. It is normal. I have great pride in my American nation’s accomplishments and I so express it. Why should I deny others their natural pride in their own unique national accomplishments?  

First, I want you to get that I became provocative because I am tired of "DA and the like's arrogance.

And this board is just full of that, hence almost empty.

I can’t speak for others, but as for myself, I TRY to be objective.

I challenge you to find a post from me where I say such French platform is best in the world.

What I complain the most is that people here take economic-industrial

and political stance for THE model, and every other country has to fit that mold, otherwise they are not worth talking about.

Well, unfortunately, I am not 20 years old like DA, and I am not 30s either.

The only thing that I ask from another poster is that they do not apply a preconceived stereotype to Americans. By the same reason, I expect that they demand the same from me.

I read what you wrote, and this is very informative indeed.

Engines are continuous developments, as all other systems.

Of course the F-35 will have few advantages, but I am scared, as I see it from my own experience, that Lockheed Martin  is designing a new Super Hornet II.

This interests me. I would be interested in reading why you believe this? The actual SH was a deliberate US Navy lie foisted to sneak into the Navy inventory a single replacement aircraft that could operate as a common mission platform. Congress would fund a replacement for an F-14 if it the SH was sold as cheap replacement for the Tomcat. It, Congress, would not fund a replacement carrier-based tanker, electronic warfare aircraft, or bomber. So McDD was told to take Hornet and modify to increase range and adapt it so that it could electrically support future EW upgrades. The outcome looks like a bigger Hornet, but the outcome was a virtually new aircraft. The SH has totally different flying characteristics from the Hornet. This has happened before. As a Frenchman you should be well aware of it. That was the bombtruck version of the F-8

Crusader;

H*tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-8_Crusader

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-8_Crusader

the A-7 Corsair II

H*tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-7_Corsair_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-7_Corsair_II

. Of course the Navy didn’t lie to Congress about the Corsair II. There was no political need, since the politicians of the day understood the mission need, and what the A-7 would bring to the force mix the USN deployed.

Not so today. How could the USN get replacements for Intruders, Vikings, and Prowlers?

The current crop of American politicians have no clue. Thus your Navy air combat tacticians go to McDonnell and tell them to produce a mission support aircraft that they can sell to Congress as an “upgrade” to the popularly reported as range deficient F-18A Hornet.

McDonnell built into that redesigned “looks like a larger Hornet so it must be a Super

Hornet” entirely DIFFERENT aircraft. The Super Hornet’s actual parameters as a mission support aircraft I’ve already described. Here I just gave you some of the political and technical history. I think it speaks volumes about American political/military

Incompetence, that we have to hide our true aircraft technology from our own domestic politicians; just to get the capabilities we need, wouldn’t you agree? I’ve read nothing Published in the proceedings of the French National Assembly that comes even close to the total ineptitude that our politicians demonstrate when it comes to understanding military procurement. Even the fighting over the Charles de Gaulle was argued on the perceived merits of the carrier as opposed to the “we need the Super Hornet because

You know? At least we can talk.

There is no point in me bringing my American nationalism to a technical discussion and beat my chest. Tarzan fashion when the point of the discussion, is to learn from each other. As for French nationalism, so what should I fear from it? has much of which to be proud and I expect Frenchmen to express it in their writing. It is normal. I have great pride in my American nation’s accomplishments and I so express it. Why should I deny others their natural pride in their own unique national accomplishments?  

First, I want you to get that I became provocative because I am tired of "DA and the like's arrogance.

And this board is just full of that, hence almost empty.

I can’t speak for others, but as for myself, I TRY to be objective.

I challenge you to find a post from me where I say such French platform is best in the world.

What I complain the most is that people here take economic-industrial

and political stance for THE model, and every other country has to fit that mold, otherwise they are not worth talking about.

Well, unfortunately, I am not 20 years old like DA, and I am not 30s either.

The only thing that I ask from another poster is that they do not apply a preconceived stereotype to Americans. By the same reason, I expect that they demand the same from me.

I read what you wrote, and this is very informative indeed.

Engines are continuous developments, as all other systems.

Of course the F-35 will have few advantages, but I am scared, as I see it from my own experience, that Lockheed Martin  is designing a new Super Hornet II.

This interests me. I would be interested in reading why you believe this? The actual SH was a deliberate US Navy lie foisted to sneak into the Navy inventory a single replacement aircraft that could operate as a common mission platform. Congress would fund a replacement for an F-14 if it the SH was sold as cheap replacement for the Tomcat. It, Congress, would not fund a replacement carrier-based tanker, electronic warfare aircraft, or bomber. So McDD was told to take Hornet and modify to increase range and adapt it so that it could electrically support future EW upgrades. The outcome looks like a bigger Hornet, but the outcome was a virtually new aircraft. The SH has totally different flying characteristics from the Hornet. This has happened before. As a Frenchman you should be well aware of it. That was the bombtruck version of the F-8

Crusader;

H*tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-8_Crusader

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-8_Crusader

the A-7 Corsair II

H*tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-7_Corsair_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-7_Corsair_II

. Of course the Navy didn’t lie to Congress about the Corsair II. There was no political need, since the politicians of the day understood the mission need, and what the A-7 would bring to the force mix the USN deployed.

Not so today. How could the USN get replacements for Intruders, Vikings, and Prowlers?

The current crop of American politicians have no clue. Thus your Navy air combat tacticians go to McDonnell and tell them to produce a mission support aircraft that they can sell to Congress as an “upgrade” to the popularly reported as range deficient F-18A Hornet.

McDonnell built into that redesigned “looks like a larger Hornet so it must be a Super

Hornet” entirely DIFFERENT aircraft. The Super Hornet’s actual parameters as a mission support aircraft I’ve already described. Here I just gave you some of the political and technical history. I think it speaks volumes about American political/military

Incompetence, that we have to hide our true aircraft technology from our own domestic politicians; just to get the capabilities we need, wouldn’t you agree? I’ve read nothing Published in the proceedings of the French National Assembly that comes even close to the total ineptitude that our politicians demonstrate when it comes to understanding military procurement. Even the fighting over the Charles de Gaulle was argued on the perceived merits of the carrier as opposed to the “we need the Super Hornet because