Frankly, this is getting a bit tiresome. So, to repeat jai's question, what is your point?
there was no question in my last two posts. the point was that we all need to come out of the imperialism/ cold war prism and choose the best. Forget conspiracy theories. they are the last refuge of the ===. i have said what i have to say. the f-16IN is somewhat markedly superior to all the single engined birds in fray and also the 35 if we consider its payload, range, avionics etc. the hornet is simply much more role worthy and ready than the twin engine birds in fray ( USAF might contest that) the EF and Rafale are overpriced and battling for survival. everything that we buy from europe or russia will eventually end up with the chinese. atleast with the Pakis we have superior numbers to bear. with the chinks we will have inferior numbers and the same technology.
Answering your post above I will first mention that I am swedish and Gripen fanboy. I am aware about this and stating this view clearly give anyone reading this post the opportunity to give my thoughts a more accurate and unbiased weight.
But, I find that you on the other hand argue in a quite slippery, fuzzy and assuming way.
About your last post only (you s**t out posts like it's manure, you know this?):
First: there certainly were 2 stubborn questions in your previous posts, contrary to what you state: about if we were sure that Rafale and Gripen NG were superior to F-16IN. So, what do you mean by stating that you did not ask us these questions? Please explain, it is confusing.
Second: Are really “all” in this forum in the need to come out of the imperialism/cold war prism?
And if we really are in the, let us call it “imperialism” prism, tell us why is this view not an accurate or at least useful picture of world politics?
Third: And if we are “all” somehow in error, and could come away from this “imperialism” view, why should the resulting choice be "the best" then? (and not before) I mean maybe the choice would still be the same?
Fourth: Comparing the F-16IN to “all the single engine birds in fray” could only mean Gripen NG, since it is the only other single engine aircraft?
Fifth: Are you sure that as you state the f-16IN is “somewhat markedly superior to Gripen NG/IN”?
If so, why?
Sixth: If “(the Super) Hornet is more battle-worthy ”than the other twin-engined competitors is debatable.
Though I am sure that F-18 have had at least a dozen times more chanses to bomb comparably defenceless Talibans (as well as totally defenceless farmers and villagers), so there Superhornet might gain a few “plus”-points as a pure bombtruck. But how well Superhornet will stack up against the euro-canards in terms of battle-worthiness among its peers or near-peers is not proved, especially if you consider superior back-up resources (like AWACs/ED-2) for USN F-18s in Iraq-war and Afghanistan.
Interestingly above reasoning leads back to the question about imperialism (point 2).
If not imperialistic, how come a comparably geographically isolated county like the US (and only the US) finds that it must “protect its interests” in poor and developing countries around the globe?
India like EU would find itself at the unfortunate receiving end compared to the US in most powergames and therefore India like EU should consider an important truism: “Divide and rule”.
If you were representing Americas interest in a multipolar game (wargame if you insist
), just how much prosperity, cooperation and peace would you wish upon and between China, India and Pakistan?
Seventh: That EF and Rafale is overpriced is debatable. We do not yet know at what price and economical conditions they have been offered to India, also we do not yet know how IAF rate their performance in Indian context. This is, also true for F-16 and F-18.
Eight: Survival; EF and Rafale is “to big to die” easily. What would France and the EF-partner countries use instead? Even the big EU-countries know that US will ask for more in return for modern weapons than it gives back, if EU can not manufacture its own weapons and have a decent defence. By the way in EU "Defence" refers to territorial defence, to not invade other countries.
Ninth: About: "European technology will eventually end up in China." I do not know about this argument. It is a hard world. Thogh I think that rather significant American weapons technology like the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb involuntary found its way from the US to China, so lets call that last argument a truce, shall we?
“Never argue with an idiot. Bystanders won't be able to tell the difference.”
I took the risk.
Best Regards "The Thumb"