With GE Resolving F404 Engine Delays, HAL Now Poised to Market Its Cost-effective Tejas Mk1A Fighter for Exports

India's state-owned aerospace and defence company, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), is set to aggressively renew its international marketing efforts for the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas Mk1A.

This strategic push comes after General Electric (GE) Aerospace committed to an accelerated delivery schedule for the F404-IN20 engines, resolving a two-year delay that had previously constrained production and stalled export discussions.

With the critical engine supply chain now stabilising, HAL is confident in its ability to meet domestic orders for the Indian Air Force (IAF) while simultaneously pursuing foreign sales.

The renewed export drive is bolstered by significant domestic demand, with an existing contract for 83 jets and government approval for an additional 97 aircraft.

This combined order for 180 Tejas Mk1A fighters creates a robust and long-term production pipeline, allowing HAL to expand its manufacturing capacity.

The assurance of a steady engine supply from GE positions the Indian fighter as a reliable and competitive option for nations looking to modernise their air forces, strengthening India's goal to become a major player in the global defence market.

The Tejas Mk1A is a single-engine, 4.5-generation multi-role fighter aircraft featuring advanced systems, including an indigenous Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, a modern electronic warfare suite, and an array of sophisticated weaponry.

The aircraft's performance is powered by the GE F404-IN20 engine, a proven turbofan capable of producing 84 kilonewtons of thrust. Production of this engine was temporarily halted due to a five-year gap in orders between 2016 and 2021, which was further complicated by global supply chain disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to significant delays from the initially planned delivery date of March 2023.

Under the revised plan, GE has already delivered the first two engines this year and is set to supply a total of 12 by December 2025 by providing two units per month.

Starting in 2026, the delivery rate will increase to 20 engines annually. To meet the large domestic order and cater to potential export clients, HAL is reportedly negotiating to further increase this supply to 30 units per year by 2027.

This resolution has effectively removed a major production bottleneck, allowing HAL to plan its manufacturing schedule with greater certainty.

Reflecting the strength of their long-standing relationship, HAL has chosen not to impose financial penalties on GE for the delays.

This decision underscores the strategic importance of the 40-year partnership, which is set to deepen with a landmark 2023 agreement for the joint production of the more powerful F414 engine in India.

This future collaboration, which includes an 80% technology transfer, will power India's next-generation aircraft like the LCA Mk2 and the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), ensuring a self-reliant engine supply for decades.

A key advantage of the Tejas Mk1A on the international stage is its cost-effectiveness, with a price tag estimated between $40 to $50 million per aircraft. This is substantially lower than Western competitors such as the F-16 or Gripen, which can cost between $70 to $100 million.

This competitive pricing has already attracted interest from several countries, including Argentina, Egypt, Nigeria, and the Philippines. Previously, HAL had to pause these negotiations to prioritise deliveries to the IAF, which urgently needs to address its depleting squadron numbers, currently at 31 against a sanctioned strength of 42.

With the engine supply issue resolved, HAL is now able to confidently re-engage with potential international customers. The aircraft is being marketed as an affordable, high-performance solution for nations seeking to replace ageing fleets of fighters like the MiG-21 or F-5.

Its ability to carry a mix of indigenous weapons, such as the Astra beyond-visual-range missile, and integrate with NATO-standard systems makes it a versatile and attractive option.

HAL officials have confirmed that by 2026, production capacity will be sufficient to fulfil export orders without impacting its primary commitment to the Indian Air Force.

 

Over 700 armed forces personnel to participate in exercise Bright Star 2025 in Egypt

ARDE Plans for Domestic Production of Gatling Guns for India’s Multi-layered Air Defence

[智子 伊瀬]

This is a very lazy take, because it reduces Germany’s aerospace role to “they didn’t build an engine or a jet since 1945” while conveniently ignoring the layers of critical tech they have mastered. Let’s break it down. First, the EJ200: yes, the XG-40 was a British precursor, but the EJ200 is not “just a son of XG-40.” MTU’s role is not some “bolt-tightening contractor”- they own 30% of the program, and their responsibility is the core cold section and DECMU (the BRAIN!): MTU's pioneering blisk technology in the compressors was a major technological leap for the EJ200, plus its digital engine health monitoring. Those are some of the crown jewels of turbofan design, the parts that make or break efficiency, life, and thrust. No country subcontracts that out to someone they consider irrelevant.

Second, the whole “Germany hasn’t built a serial fighter since 1945” line is just unserious. If you’re going to use that logic, then Sweden hasn’t built a heavy fighter ever, and Japan hasn’t fielded a domestic engine in decades- does that make them technologically irrelevant? Of course not. Germany’s role in Tornado and Typhoon wasn’t accidental; they were central in avionics, structures, and propulsion work. MTU, Diehl, Hensoldt, Premium AEROTEC- these are Tier 1 suppliers on every European program. Try building FCAS without MTU's blisk experience, Hensoldt’s AESA radars/EW, or Diehl’s missile integration. France alone simply cannot cover all of those bases at once- Dassault builds excellent airframes and Thales has top-tier avionics, but FCAS is a systems-of-systems effort, and that needs German industrial depth. Tornado not being successful? flew four decades, and was exported multiple times. Your success metric seems to be 'Omg France produced Rafale by itself!', except that too falls apart when you realize they only starting selling once Dassault started begging with heavy discounts. While Thales is stuck with GaAs-based radars, Hensoldt is mass-producing GaN-based AESAs. If France REALLY couldve done the '6th gen FCAS' all by itself, they wouldnt be coming back to throw a tantrum every few months- they'd just walk out. They need German expertise, money, and industrial capability- the 6th generation of fighters is envisioned to be like a 'system of systems', and almost no nations on Earth can do that independently.

And the export-blockade argument? Come on. That’s politics, not engineering. German industry isn’t less capable because the Bundestag drags its heels on exports. By that logic, the U.S. should be considered technologically inferior because Congress blocks half of its arms deals. It’s a false equivalence.

Finally, the claim that “there’s no German aviation tech France doesn’t already have” is flat-out wrong. Hensoldt leads Europe in several fields, and MTU along with RR is Europe’s only true competitor to Safran in engine technology, and Premium AEROTEC is Airbus’s backbone in composites. France needs Germany because FCAS isn’t just about “can you build a plane?”- it’s about integrating engines, sensors, datalinks, materials, AI, unmanned teaming, and industrial scale. You can’t do that with Dassault and Thales alone. Which is why Paris still keeps Berlin on board, however much that frustrates so-called 'Purists' like you.

So, if the argument is “Germany has no tech, France can do it alone,” it collapses the second you actually list the subsystems. France is very good- but Germany is irreplaceable in the modern aerospace ecosystem. Spreading fake news on defense.in isnt a very good use of your time- I strongly suggest you spend it researching on this topic instead. Thanks!

Japan made their own engines, Germany did not. Sweden did not need to build a heavy fighter, as it simply did not fit Sweden's requirements and limited budget. MTU did not build a single engine and they will have to live with that. Even now they only build 30% of an engine, without the experience/technology to build the other 70%.

Tornado is not successful, neither in terms of export (1 buyer, who bought them mainly because of Israeli pressure on the US to limit F-15 sales), nor in terms of operation (Disgraced itself during the Iraqi campaigns due to operational difficulties). Most of the Tornado avionics are of British origin. It is very good that France jumped off the variable-sweep wing theme in time and did not make a mistake. FCAS needs stable funding and equipment first of all, and not "irreplaceable German technology". As practice has shown, Thales is capable of handling electronics, Dassault with the airframe, Safran with engines, armament, of course, will be of pan-European production and from other sources (for export). Again, even in the case of a loyal wingman, Dassault has experience in creating nEUROn, this topic can be given to Indra sistemas. Politics also plays a big role in this project, which is why the partnership with Germany was also a dubious step.

 

[Snowstrike]

Japan made their own engines, Germany did not. Sweden did not need to build a heavy fighter, as it simply did not fit Sweden's requirements and limited budget. MTU did not build a single engine and they will have to live with that. Even now they only build 30% of an engine, without the experience/technology to build the other 70%.

Tornado is not successful, neither in terms of export (1 buyer, who bought them mainly because of Israeli pressure on the US to limit F-15 sales), nor in terms of operation (Disgraced itself during the Iraqi campaigns due to operational difficulties). Most of the Tornado avionics are of British origin. It is very good that France jumped off the variable-sweep wing theme in time and did not make a mistake. FCAS needs stable funding and equipment first of all, and not "irreplaceable German technology". As practice has shown, Thales is capable of handling electronics, Dassault with the airframe, Safran with engines, armament, of course, will be of pan-European production and from other sources (for export). Again, even in the case of a loyal wingman, Dassault has experience in creating nEUROn, this topic can be given to Indra sistemas. Politics also plays a big role in this project, which is why the partnership with Germany was also a dubious step.

The idea that Germany “did not build engines” is historically ignorant. MTU has decades of proven capability in the most demanding and advanced parts of modern fighter engines. MTU’s role in the EJ200 is not “30% of a toy” but the core sections critical to performance: intermediate pressure compressor, low-pressure turbine, and overall engine assembly/testing. On top of that, MTU developed and owns the EJ200’s full Engine Health Monitoring System- the digital brain that keeps the Typhoon flying. That’s not subcontractor work, that’s high-end intellectual property. Germany also co-leads the NGF engine (with Safran) for FCAS, a responsibility France itself acknowledged could not be handled alone. So much for “Germany bad! Germany stupid! No tech!"

As for Sweden and Japan- they didn’t avoid heavy fighters because of “smart choices,” they simply couldn’t afford the infrastructure for large-scale, carrier-capable or strategic aircraft programs. Japan’s XF9 is a strong demonstrator, but it’s not a fielded operational engine yet; Sweden’s RM12 was a modified GEF404 licensed with limited indigenous content. By contrast, Germany’s industry has remained embedded in almost every major Western European engine program since the 1970s, giving it constant practical experience.

Now, Tornado: calling it “unsuccessful” is laughable. It was exported to Saudi Arabia (a massive customer), operated by four nations, and remained in frontline service for nearly 50 years- you don’t keep a “failure” in NATO service for half a century. The Gulf War “disgrace” claim ignores the fact that Tornados flew some of the riskiest low-level strike missions in Iraq- and yes, suffered losses, but proved NATO had the only dedicated low-level interdictor on the battlefield. Meanwhile, France’s vaunted Mirage F1 saw its wings clipped early, and Dassault had to wait another decade for the Mirage 2000 to mature.

And FCAS? Pretending Dassault/Thales/Safran can “do everything alone” is pure fantasy. Safran’s M88 -the Rafale’s engine- is underpowered and has never scaled beyond a wheezing 75kN class. For a sixth-gen fighter, they need German expertise and MTU’s digital engine systems. They acknowledged it themselves- they need the so-called 'technologically illiterate Germans'. Dassault has never fielded a large combat UAV on its own- nEUROn was a multinational program (including Saab, Alenia, HAI, EAB, RUAG. Beating your chest and screaming 'French victory lap!' from the rooftops isnt just ridiculous and false, its disrespectful to the efforts put in by all partners. Even Thales leans heavily on pan-European input for next-gen sensor development.

Bottom line: without Germany, FCAS becomes a Rafale NG with prettier PowerPoints. With Germany, it has the industrial and technological depth to actually match Tempest or U.S. NGAD. That’s the inconvenient fact you dont want to acknowledge.

 

[智子 伊瀬]

The idea that Germany “did not build engines” is historically ignorant. MTU has decades of proven capability in the most demanding and advanced parts of modern fighter engines. MTU’s role in the EJ200 is not “30% of a toy” but the core sections critical to performance: intermediate pressure compressor, low-pressure turbine, and overall engine assembly/testing. On top of that, MTU developed and owns the EJ200’s full Engine Health Monitoring System- the digital brain that keeps the Typhoon flying. That’s not subcontractor work, that’s high-end intellectual property. Germany also co-leads the NGF engine (with Safran) for FCAS, a responsibility France itself acknowledged could not be handled alone. So much for “Germany bad! Germany stupid! No tech!"

As for Sweden and Japan- they didn’t avoid heavy fighters because of “smart choices,” they simply couldn’t afford the infrastructure for large-scale, carrier-capable or strategic aircraft programs. Japan’s XF9 is a strong demonstrator, but it’s not a fielded operational engine yet; Sweden’s RM12 was a modified GEF404 licensed with limited indigenous content. By contrast, Germany’s industry has remained embedded in almost every major Western European engine program since the 1970s, giving it constant practical experience.

Now, Tornado: calling it “unsuccessful” is laughable. It was exported to Saudi Arabia (a massive customer), operated by four nations, and remained in frontline service for nearly 50 years- you don’t keep a “failure” in NATO service for half a century. The Gulf War “disgrace” claim ignores the fact that Tornados flew some of the riskiest low-level strike missions in Iraq- and yes, suffered losses, but proved NATO had the only dedicated low-level interdictor on the battlefield. Meanwhile, France’s vaunted Mirage F1 saw its wings clipped early, and Dassault had to wait another decade for the Mirage 2000 to mature.

And FCAS? Pretending Dassault/Thales/Safran can “do everything alone” is pure fantasy. Safran’s M88 -the Rafale’s engine- is underpowered and has never scaled beyond a wheezing 75kN class. For a sixth-gen fighter, they need German expertise and MTU’s digital engine systems. They acknowledged it themselves- they need the so-called 'technologically illiterate Germans'. Dassault has never fielded a large combat UAV on its own- nEUROn was a multinational program (including Saab, Alenia, HAI, EAB, RUAG. Beating your chest and screaming 'French victory lap!' from the rooftops isnt just ridiculous and false, its disrespectful to the efforts put in by all partners. Even Thales leans heavily on pan-European input for next-gen sensor development.

Bottom line: without Germany, FCAS becomes a Rafale NG with prettier PowerPoints. With Germany, it has the industrial and technological depth to actually match Tempest or U.S. NGAD. That’s the inconvenient fact you dont want to acknowledge.

Japan was under pressure from 3 factors: US pressure, which pushed through a project based on the F-16, the collapse of the Tokyo stock exchange and the beginning of the "lost decades", the collapse of the USSR, which resulted in a reduction in the program's budget. Shinshin was created in the 10th by Japan, the engines were Japanese. What about Germany? Japan built engines for patrol aircraft, for training aircraft, for a prototype of a 5th generation fighter, what from this list has Germany built since 1945? XF9 gave full power back in 2017-2018 and was supposed to become the engine for the F-3, but the program was merged with Tempest and now the Japanese version of the new fighter will have even newer engines, etc.

The Tornado export was due to Israel pressuring the US not to sell more than 60 F-15s. And even Arab pilots had a low opinion of the Tornado ADV in the first batch, which was purchased instead of additional F-15s. NATO even had such trash as the F-104 in service and kept the outdated CF-100 and G91 in service for a very long time.

In Iraq, the Tornado proved a logistical nightmare and was pushed into second place by other aircraft. Apparently, the experience of using the Tornado was still an argument in favor of continuing the Eurofighter program. The M88 is capable of delivering more thrust even without much scaling, which Safran confirmed back in the late 00s, with scaling it is capable of delivering 30% more thrust, Safran finally received funding for this. FCAS will be larger than the Rafale, therefore there are no strict limitations for engines and so on. The future aircraft carriers of France and Spain will also be larger than the current ones, which simplifies the task.

Bottom line: France and Spain are calling Belgium/Poland/etc., Germany sees this and is ready to make concessions on shares in the company so as not to squander shares and technologies-profit

 

[Snowstrike]

Japan was under pressure from 3 factors: US pressure, which pushed through a project based on the F-16, the collapse of the Tokyo stock exchange and the beginning of the "lost decades", the collapse of the USSR, which resulted in a reduction in the program's budget. Shinshin was created in the 10th by Japan, the engines were Japanese. What about Germany? Japan built engines for patrol aircraft, for training aircraft, for a prototype of a 5th generation fighter, what from this list has Germany built since 1945? XF9 gave full power back in 2017-2018 and was supposed to become the engine for the F-3, but the program was merged with Tempest and now the Japanese version of the new fighter will have even newer engines, etc.

The Tornado export was due to Israel pressuring the US not to sell more than 60 F-15s. And even Arab pilots had a low opinion of the Tornado ADV in the first batch, which was purchased instead of additional F-15s. NATO even had such trash as the F-104 in service and kept the outdated CF-100 and G91 in service for a very long time.

In Iraq, the Tornado proved a logistical nightmare and was pushed into second place by other aircraft. Apparently, the experience of using the Tornado was still an argument in favor of continuing the Eurofighter program. The M88 is capable of delivering more thrust even without much scaling, which Safran confirmed back in the late 00s, with scaling it is capable of delivering 30% more thrust, Safran finally received funding for this. FCAS will be larger than the Rafale, therefore there are no strict limitations for engines and so on. The future aircraft carriers of France and Spain will also be larger than the current ones, which simplifies the task.

Bottom line: France and Spain are calling Belgium/Poland/etc., Germany sees this and is ready to make concessions on shares in the company so as not to squander shares and technologies-profit

You’re romanticizing Japan while downplaying Europe to cope- Japan’s XF9 is impressive on paper, but still a demonstrator which is NOWHERE near ready, while Germany (through MTU on the EJ200) has been building and supporting engines that actually fly combat sorties for NATO and exports. The Tornado you call “trash” flew real-world wars from Desert Storm to Libya, dropping ordnance while Shinshin never even cleared cosplay mode. All in all, a taxpayer-funded Highschool project which never made it off the display shelves. Complaining that Arab pilots disliked the ADV ignores that it was a stopgap; the IDS variant did exactly what it was designed for. Your “Iraq logistics” point is laughable- every advanced jet is a logistical nightmare in the desert, yet Tornados still flew hundreds of missions. And don’t get me started on the M88 fairytale: Safran’s been promising thrust bumps since the early 2000s, but what’s actually in service today is the same 75kn wheezer engine. Safran has zero experience with sixth-gen engines, no track record in variable-cycle designs, and not even access to a proper demonstrator- meanwhile you’re pretending they’re about to pull a miracle scaling trick out of thin air. Future French and Spanish carriers? They don’t exist yet, and their current carriers are toys compared to US CVNs. Bottom line: Europe’s aircraft and engines are combat-proven and exported in the hundreds, Japan’s are still largely tech demos and paper studies. Big difference between PowerPoint engines and engines that actually fought wars.

MTU, the punching bag you like to dunk on, is one of the world leaders in engine technology- a fact you consistently love to ignore and overlook. They pioneered the advanced blisks needed for its compressor stages, providing a technological leap for the EJ200, along with of course, developing the very BRAIN of the engine, the DECMU. Without MTU, the EJ200 is nothing more than another paper project. Germany's advanced expertise in aircraft design, stealth coating, engines, EW, radars, and internal systems all make it INDISPENSABLE for the FCAS- which is why France is still hinging on them instead of walking out entirely. Oh, and Germany is no pushover either- they've publicly said that the FCAS is not going forward if France and their gang of Dassault goons dont give up the 'Leader and Dominance' demands. I suggest you use credible sources instead of instagram reels.

For the sake of the quality of forum discussion, refrain from posting fake news and following up on it with toxicity. Thank you!

 

[智子 伊瀬]

You’re romanticizing Japan while downplaying Europe to cope- Japan’s XF9 is impressive on paper, but still a demonstrator which is NOWHERE near ready, while Germany (through MTU on the EJ200) has been building and supporting engines that actually fly combat sorties for NATO and exports. The Tornado you call “trash” flew real-world wars from Desert Storm to Libya, dropping ordnance while Shinshin never even cleared cosplay mode. All in all, a taxpayer-funded Highschool project which never made it off the display shelves. Complaining that Arab pilots disliked the ADV ignores that it was a stopgap; the IDS variant did exactly what it was designed for. Your “Iraq logistics” point is laughable- every advanced jet is a logistical nightmare in the desert, yet Tornados still flew hundreds of missions. And don’t get me started on the M88 fairytale: Safran’s been promising thrust bumps since the early 2000s, but what’s actually in service today is the same 75kn wheezer engine. Safran has zero experience with sixth-gen engines, no track record in variable-cycle designs, and not even access to a proper demonstrator- meanwhile you’re pretending they’re about to pull a miracle scaling trick out of thin air. Future French and Spanish carriers? They don’t exist yet, and their current carriers are toys compared to US CVNs. Bottom line: Europe’s aircraft and engines are combat-proven and exported in the hundreds, Japan’s are still largely tech demos and paper studies. Big difference between PowerPoint engines and engines that actually fought wars.

MTU, the punching bag you like to dunk on, is one of the world leaders in engine technology- a fact you consistently love to ignore and overlook. They pioneered the advanced blisks needed for its compressor stages, providing a technological leap for the EJ200, along with of course, developing the very BRAIN of the engine, the DECMU. Without MTU, the EJ200 is nothing more than another paper project. Germany's advanced expertise in aircraft design, stealth coating, engines, EW, radars, and internal systems all make it INDISPENSABLE for the FCAS- which is why France is still hinging on them instead of walking out entirely. Oh, and Germany is no pushover either- they've publicly said that the FCAS is not going forward if France and their gang of Dassault goons dont give up the 'Leader and Dominance' demands. I suggest you use credible sources instead of instagram reels.

For the sake of the quality of forum discussion, refrain from posting fake news and following up on it with toxicity. Thank you!

I have seen the Shinshin and its engines with my own eyes, but even in a German museum I can only see pre-1945 technology, or several prototypes including the Egyptian aircraft
(The Egyptian plane had an E300 engine, which was developed by the German Brandner, so let's just write it down as a German engine. After all, there was one completely German engine from 1945.) or foreign technology. The XF5 got the Shinshin into the air and was used extensively, the XF-9 delivered full power and fulfilled the program's goal - an engine with the power of the F119, but about the size of the F110

Tornado was not junk, it was very high-tech for its time, but at the same time it was unsuccessful, which is generally recognized. Typhoon is much easier to maintain and use, despite its higher technological level. Tornado was more or less lucky with circumstances like Israel, due to which it had a single export buyer, Typhoon has a much better export history (even despite the embargo against Saudi Arabia and Turkey until recently), it is a successful aircraft. Junk is the F-104 sold to Europe, and with the help of US pressure and bribery from Lockheed. And yet, in 1991 and 2003, it was relegated to second place. The F-14, which was much more complex than the F-15 or F-16, proved more effective there than the Tornado.


Safran did not receive money for development. Even SNECMA (before the transformation into Safran) in the early 00s proposed to significantly improve the M53 and work on the improvement of the M88, but "there is no money".


Germany has even less experience working on a 6th generation engine, there are only 2 prototypes from the US, which were never selected for re-engining the F-35, as they initially wanted, perhaps the Chinese have something, but they are highly secretive. MTU has no advantage over Safran.
MTU is the leader in land-based engines and marine turbines, where France lags behind Germany. But aircraft engines are not remarkable compared to the US, France, Russia and, more recently, China.

No one is stopping Germany from finding new partners, even the same Turks or Poles.

 

[Snowstrike]

I have seen the Shinshin and its engines with my own eyes, but even in a German museum I can only see pre-1945 technology, or several prototypes including the Egyptian aircraft
(The Egyptian plane had an E300 engine, which was developed by the German Brandner, so let's just write it down as a German engine. After all, there was one completely German engine from 1945.) or foreign technology. The XF5 got the Shinshin into the air and was used extensively, the XF-9 delivered full power and fulfilled the program's goal - an engine with the power of the F119, but about the size of the F110

Tornado was not junk, it was very high-tech for its time, but at the same time it was unsuccessful, which is generally recognized. Typhoon is much easier to maintain and use, despite its higher technological level. Tornado was more or less lucky with circumstances like Israel, due to which it had a single export buyer, Typhoon has a much better export history (even despite the embargo against Saudi Arabia and Turkey until recently), it is a successful aircraft. Junk is the F-104 sold to Europe, and with the help of US pressure and bribery from Lockheed. And yet, in 1991 and 2003, it was relegated to second place. The F-14, which was much more complex than the F-15 or F-16, proved more effective there than the Tornado.


Safran did not receive money for development. Even SNECMA (before the transformation into Safran) in the early 00s proposed to significantly improve the M53 and work on the improvement of the M88, but "there is no money".


Germany has even less experience working on a 6th generation engine, there are only 2 prototypes from the US, which were never selected for re-engining the F-35, as they initially wanted, perhaps the Chinese have something, but they are highly secretive. MTU has no advantage over Safran.
MTU is the leader in land-based engines and marine turbines, where France lags behind Germany. But aircraft engines are not remarkable compared to the US, France, Russia and, more recently, China.

No one is stopping Germany from finding new partners, even the same Turks or Poles.

So you’ve “seen” the Shinshin and its engines- congratulations, tourism doesn’t make you an aerospace expert. The XF5 was a tech demonstrator, not a frontline fighter engine, and the XF9 is still in testing, nowhere close to powering aircraft. Meanwhile, Germany’s MTU has been designing, producing, and sustaining some of the most cruciall modules of the EJ200 for decades-the most the demanding, critical parts of a modern fighter engine. Japan has yet to field a single indigenous frontline jet engine in active combat service, while MTU’s modules are literally flying with every Eurofighter Typhoon today. That’s the difference between “museum tours” and actual aerospace pedigree.

Your take on Tornado is half-truths mixed with coping. The Tornado was “unsuccessful”? It was the backbone of NATO strike power for decades, flying deep-penetration missions that neither the F-15 nor F-16 were designed for. In Desert Storm, Tornados were the ones doing ultra-low-level strikes against hardened Iraqi airbases at night-something your “more effective” F-14s were never built to do. And without Germany’s industrial and political weight, the Tornado program wouldn’t have existed at all-it wasn’t Dassault or France stepping in, it was Britain, Germany, and Italy carrying Europe’s strike capability.

As for exports- the Typhoon sold in the billions to Saudi Arabia, Austria, Qatar, and Kuwait, despite political embargoes. Dassault had to basically beg for Rafale sales and only won after years of failed Mirage 2000 upgrades. And let’s not forget: Dassault stormed out of the Eurofighter program because they couldn’t stand not being the boss. Germany stayed, built the jet, and delivered actual success.

Your whining about Safran’s lack of funding is just proof of France’s own political mismanagement. MTU, meanwhile, kept itself relevant by securing joint programs and consistently delivering in propulsion modules. France let its industry lag behind, and now they’re scrambling with political lobbying instead of industrial dominance.

And please- the claim that “MTU has no advantage over Safran” is laughable. MTU literally leads the world in low-pressure turbine blades has mastered cold section tech at the highest stress points of the engine. Safran, meanwhile, needed help from GE for the CFM56 and LEAP. And don’t forget, the M88- France’s pride and joy- still underperforms compared to the EJ200, with less thrust and no growth margin left without major redesign. That’s not superiority; that’s stagnation.

Finally, “nothing stopping Germany from finding new partners”? Exactly- and that’s what France fears the most. Because if Berlin ever decides it’s done with Paris’ ego trips, MTU and Airbus/Hensoldt's much needed engine and EW/radar expertise for the FCAS would be gone- and their own program stalls or crumbles.

 

[智子 伊瀬]

So you’ve “seen” the Shinshin and its engines- congratulations, tourism doesn’t make you an aerospace expert. The XF5 was a tech demonstrator, not a frontline fighter engine, and the XF9 is still in testing, nowhere close to powering aircraft. Meanwhile, Germany’s MTU has been designing, producing, and sustaining some of the most cruciall modules of the EJ200 for decades-the most the demanding, critical parts of a modern fighter engine. Japan has yet to field a single indigenous frontline jet engine in active combat service, while MTU’s modules are literally flying with every Eurofighter Typhoon today. That’s the difference between “museum tours” and actual aerospace pedigree.

Your take on Tornado is half-truths mixed with coping. The Tornado was “unsuccessful”? It was the backbone of NATO strike power for decades, flying deep-penetration missions that neither the F-15 nor F-16 were designed for. In Desert Storm, Tornados were the ones doing ultra-low-level strikes against hardened Iraqi airbases at night-something your “more effective” F-14s were never built to do. And without Germany’s industrial and political weight, the Tornado program wouldn’t have existed at all-it wasn’t Dassault or France stepping in, it was Britain, Germany, and Italy carrying Europe’s strike capability.

As for exports- the Typhoon sold in the billions to Saudi Arabia, Austria, Qatar, and Kuwait, despite political embargoes. Dassault had to basically beg for Rafale sales and only won after years of failed Mirage 2000 upgrades. And let’s not forget: Dassault stormed out of the Eurofighter program because they couldn’t stand not being the boss. Germany stayed, built the jet, and delivered actual success.

Your whining about Safran’s lack of funding is just proof of France’s own political mismanagement. MTU, meanwhile, kept itself relevant by securing joint programs and consistently delivering in propulsion modules. France let its industry lag behind, and now they’re scrambling with political lobbying instead of industrial dominance.

And please- the claim that “MTU has no advantage over Safran” is laughable. MTU literally leads the world in low-pressure turbine blades has mastered cold section tech at the highest stress points of the engine. Safran, meanwhile, needed help from GE for the CFM56 and LEAP. And don’t forget, the M88- France’s pride and joy- still underperforms compared to the EJ200, with less thrust and no growth margin left without major redesign. That’s not superiority; that’s stagnation.

Finally, “nothing stopping Germany from finding new partners”? Exactly- and that’s what France fears the most. Because if Berlin ever decides it’s done with Paris’ ego trips, MTU and Airbus/Hensoldt's much needed engine and EW/radar expertise for the FCAS would be gone- and their own program stalls or crumbles.

Shinshin flights have always attracted a lot of people, sometimes people came to watch from other parts of Japan. The XF5 was the engine for the X-2 Shinshin technology demonstrator, which proved its performance and was actively used during this program, the XF9 did the job. It would be possible to sell the XF9 technology to India, but it would hardly fit into the AMCA. The T-4 flies with Japanese engines, although it is a training aircraft. The main striking force of NATO has always been the US Air Force. The Tornado barely coped with the role of an interceptor and showed far from the best performance during the real war in Iraq. The F-14 did not need this - it calmly bombed from above. Most of the work to destroy Iraq's air defense was done by cruise missiles, F-117 and Apache. Dassault closed the sweep-wing fighter program in time, as these aircraft quickly became obsolete (except for the F-14), although it built the Mirage G. Typhoon faced embargoes twice - against Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and both times it was imposed by Germany. The embargo on Turkey has been lifted, with Saudi Arabia it is still unclear. Mirage 2000 was in demand, but it was taken out of production to promote Rafale. India and Egypt became the launch customers for Rafale, at least both countries are happy with the purchase, then came numerous orders from Europe and Asia, perhaps there will be from Latin America and Africa. France withdrew because even Britain doubted the need for carrier basing, and other program members did not approve of it. It was possible to propose developing the concept based on the Mirage 4000, but this did not work out either, the Swedes also decided to build the aircraft separately. Not only France, but the entire EU, so Europe is still in a miserable position and Putin does what he wants. In Europe before the war, only the small Baltic countries, Poland and Greece spent more than 2% of their GDP on defense, which was adopted at the NATO summit back in 2014. Greece produces little of its own products and mainly imports them, the Baltic countries have small budgets, and Poland has had difficulties with the further development of its military industry. At least in the European tank project, Germany clearly dominates, in principle, the Germans are the most experienced manufacturers of armored vehicles in Europe and this leadership is understandable, but in the aviation industry, Germany is inferior to France. CFM56 was conceived as a parity partnership between Snecma and GE, which it still is, Germany also has difficulties in this area - it does not even have a 50% stake in the company producing aircraft engines for civilian aircraft. M88 received funding recently, the modernization of the EJ200 is still in question. Will Germany be able to do without Dassault, Safran and Thales? It’s OK without Indra sistemas, the Spaniards have little experience in principle, but they don’t claim a leading role.

 

[Snowstrike]

Shinshin flights have always attracted a lot of people, sometimes people came to watch from other parts of Japan. The XF5 was the engine for the X-2 Shinshin technology demonstrator, which proved its performance and was actively used during this program, the XF9 did the job. It would be possible to sell the XF9 technology to India, but it would hardly fit into the AMCA. The T-4 flies with Japanese engines, although it is a training aircraft. The main striking force of NATO has always been the US Air Force. The Tornado barely coped with the role of an interceptor and showed far from the best performance during the real war in Iraq. The F-14 did not need this - it calmly bombed from above. Most of the work to destroy Iraq's air defense was done by cruise missiles, F-117 and Apache. Dassault closed the sweep-wing fighter program in time, as these aircraft quickly became obsolete (except for the F-14), although it built the Mirage G. Typhoon faced embargoes twice - against Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and both times it was imposed by Germany. The embargo on Turkey has been lifted, with Saudi Arabia it is still unclear. Mirage 2000 was in demand, but it was taken out of production to promote Rafale. India and Egypt became the launch customers for Rafale, at least both countries are happy with the purchase, then came numerous orders from Europe and Asia, perhaps there will be from Latin America and Africa. France withdrew because even Britain doubted the need for carrier basing, and other program members did not approve of it. It was possible to propose developing the concept based on the Mirage 4000, but this did not work out either, the Swedes also decided to build the aircraft separately. Not only France, but the entire EU, so Europe is still in a miserable position and Putin does what he wants. In Europe before the war, only the small Baltic countries, Poland and Greece spent more than 2% of their GDP on defense, which was adopted at the NATO summit back in 2014. Greece produces little of its own products and mainly imports them, the Baltic countries have small budgets, and Poland has had difficulties with the further development of its military industry. At least in the European tank project, Germany clearly dominates, in principle, the Germans are the most experienced manufacturers of armored vehicles in Europe and this leadership is understandable, but in the aviation industry, Germany is inferior to France. CFM56 was conceived as a parity partnership between Snecma and GE, which it still is, Germany also has difficulties in this area - it does not even have a 50% stake in the company producing aircraft engines for civilian aircraft. M88 received funding recently, the modernization of the EJ200 is still in question. Will Germany be able to do without Dassault, Safran and Thales? It’s OK without Indra sistemas, the Spaniards have little experience in principle, but they don’t claim a leading role.

You’re rewriting history with crayons here. Yes, Shinshin flights drew crowds- it was a tech demo, not even close to being ready for deployment. It was like an airshow stunt, not a frontline weapon. The XF5 and XF9 are impressive on paper, but export restrictions from Japan are ironclad: India or anyone else will never touch that tech, so stop daydreaming about some fantasy “XF9 in the AMCA.” Tornado? It “barely coped” as an interceptor because that wasn’t even its job. It was built as a deep-strike interdiction jet for low-level penetration, nuclear delivery, and SEAD-missions the F-14 never even trained for. And in Desert Storm, Tornados flew insanely dangerous treetop bombing runs against some of the densest SAM networks in the world, taking losses but completing tasks the high-flying F-14 “bomb trucks” wouldn’t dare. Dassault’s Mirage G wasn’t some genius “closed in time” decision, it failed because France couldn’t afford to field it, and pretending the F-14 was some eternal exception is laughable when the USN ditched swing wings as a dead end by the 90s. Typhoon? You blame Germany for embargoes, but despite those political freezes the jet still racked up major exports- UK, Italy, Austria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait-way more than the Mirage 2000 ever managed, and let’s not forget France itself killed the 2000 to force Rafale down buyers’ throats. Meanwhile, Rafale’s sales look flashy now, but it was a graveyard program for 15 years until India and Egypt bailed it out. And your “Germany lags France in engines” take is laughable: MTU literally builds some heart of the EJ200 with advanced blisks for the LPC- cutting-edge stuff even Safran doesn’t mass-produce- and of course, not to mention, the very brains of the engine- DECMU. Airbus (a German-French-Spanish machine) is the reason Europe even exists as an aerospace competitor to Boeing. France alone would be irrelevant; Germany’s industrial base is the spine, from Airbus to Eurodrone to FCAS. Tanks? Everyone agrees Germany dominates. Aviation? Germany’s the #3 aerospace exporter on Earth, dwarfing France outside Dassault’s boutique projects. And your “CFM56 is parity” fairy tale? GE owns the crown jewels, Snecma was basically carried to relevance on American tech. The M88 had to beg for funding in the 2000s, while the EJ200 keeps scaling upgrades waiting for funding release. FCAS without Germany? Good luck building anything beyond another overpriced Rafale with mood lighting. France screams “leadership” and "80% workshare" while Germany quietly makes sure the thing actually flies- all the while being berated by people like you. Maybe look into German military aviation history: you'll see how MTU is THE world leader in LPTs and cold sections.

 

[智子 伊瀬]

You’re rewriting history with crayons here. Yes, Shinshin flights drew crowds- it was a tech demo, not even close to being ready for deployment. It was like an airshow stunt, not a frontline weapon. The XF5 and XF9 are impressive on paper, but export restrictions from Japan are ironclad: India or anyone else will never touch that tech, so stop daydreaming about some fantasy “XF9 in the AMCA.” Tornado? It “barely coped” as an interceptor because that wasn’t even its job. It was built as a deep-strike interdiction jet for low-level penetration, nuclear delivery, and SEAD-missions the F-14 never even trained for. And in Desert Storm, Tornados flew insanely dangerous treetop bombing runs against some of the densest SAM networks in the world, taking losses but completing tasks the high-flying F-14 “bomb trucks” wouldn’t dare. Dassault’s Mirage G wasn’t some genius “closed in time” decision, it failed because France couldn’t afford to field it, and pretending the F-14 was some eternal exception is laughable when the USN ditched swing wings as a dead end by the 90s. Typhoon? You blame Germany for embargoes, but despite those political freezes the jet still racked up major exports- UK, Italy, Austria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait-way more than the Mirage 2000 ever managed, and let’s not forget France itself killed the 2000 to force Rafale down buyers’ throats. Meanwhile, Rafale’s sales look flashy now, but it was a graveyard program for 15 years until India and Egypt bailed it out. And your “Germany lags France in engines” take is laughable: MTU literally builds some heart of the EJ200 with advanced blisks for the LPC- cutting-edge stuff even Safran doesn’t mass-produce- and of course, not to mention, the very brains of the engine- DECMU. Airbus (a German-French-Spanish machine) is the reason Europe even exists as an aerospace competitor to Boeing. France alone would be irrelevant; Germany’s industrial base is the spine, from Airbus to Eurodrone to FCAS. Tanks? Everyone agrees Germany dominates. Aviation? Germany’s the #3 aerospace exporter on Earth, dwarfing France outside Dassault’s boutique projects. And your “CFM56 is parity” fairy tale? GE owns the crown jewels, Snecma was basically carried to relevance on American tech. The M88 had to beg for funding in the 2000s, while the EJ200 keeps scaling upgrades waiting for funding release. FCAS without Germany? Good luck building anything beyond another overpriced Rafale with mood lighting. France screams “leadership” and "80% workshare" while Germany quietly makes sure the thing actually flies- all the while being berated by people like you. Maybe look into German military aviation history: you'll see how MTU is THE world leader in LPTs and cold sections.

Japan have already violated it, fortunately, they started back in 2014, continued after 2022, and even before the restrictions were lifted there was a loophole for export - joint development and sale to a partner. IHI offered the XF9 to India. Tornado IDV was an interceptor and was very problematic, nuclear bombs as a weapon of destruction were already outdated at that time, and it could not carry missiles with a nuclear warhead. France didn't need it, Jaguar sucked a lot of money, so France focused on Mirage 2000 and Mirage 4000 instead of Mirage G. F-14 was removed from service only in 2006, it turned out to be the most advanced aircraft with a variable-sweep wing, Tornado, MiG-23, Su-24, Mirage G looked weak against it. The funniest thing is that Airbus main office of operations is headquartered in Blagnac, France 😂 CFM is parity, 50% for GE, 50% for Safran. GE is not against further developing the consortium, since they worked on LEAP. Eurodrone looks like a dubious project, who even approved it? Now EU will have to create reconnaissance equipment for it like the RQ-4, since attack drones of this size do not last long on a modern battlefield.

The Leclerc was a breakthrough, but the Leopard 2 was the biggest success, so Germany remains the EU leader in ground vehicles

 

[Snowstrike]

Japan have already violated it, fortunately, they started back in 2014, continued after 2022, and even before the restrictions were lifted there was a loophole for export - joint development and sale to a partner. IHI offered the XF9 to India. Tornado IDV was an interceptor and was very problematic, nuclear bombs as a weapon of destruction were already outdated at that time, and it could not carry missiles with a nuclear warhead. France didn't need it, Jaguar sucked a lot of money, so France focused on Mirage 2000 and Mirage 4000 instead of Mirage G. F-14 was removed from service only in 2006, it turned out to be the most advanced aircraft with a variable-sweep wing, Tornado, MiG-23, Su-24, Mirage G looked weak against it. The funniest thing is that Airbus main office of operations is headquartered in Blagnac, France 😂 CFM is parity, 50% for GE, 50% for Safran. GE is not against further developing the consortium, since they worked on LEAP. Eurodrone looks like a dubious project, who even approved it? Now EU will have to create reconnaissance equipment for it like the RQ-4, since attack drones of this size do not last long on a modern battlefield.

The Leclerc was a breakthrough, but the Leopard 2 was the biggest success, so Germany remains the EU leader in ground vehicles

Japan “violating” restrictions by dangling XF9 tech to India is the kind of cope people cling to when they don’t understand how arms export loopholes actually work- it was an offer, not a crate of engines on a ship to Mumbai with the 'Atmanirbhar sticker'. Did you really think that India would get a '100% ToT and IP' for the engine? Please. Japan would NEVER let that through- those same export controls continue haunting any deal like that. And spare me the “Tornado bad, F-14 perfect” drivel: the Tomcat was a diva that ate engines for breakfast (F110 swap ring a bell?), guzzled cash, and spent more time on the deck than in the air; the Tornado wasn’t glamorous, but it did the dirty NATO jobs that actually mattered- mud-moving, SEAD, recon instead of starring in Hollywood. “Nuclear bombs outdated in the ’80s”? Cute take, except NATO’s B61s are still sitting under German soil right now, and Washington’s still modernizing them- deterrence doesn’t “expire” just because some guy on the internet thinks it should. France walking away from Tornado wasn’t a masterstroke, it was because their Mirage G program belly-flopped and they needed to salvage Mirage 2000 as their one halfway-credible fighter. Airbus being headquartered in Blagnac is not some epic mic-drop- it’s a pan-European Frankenstein with major German, Spanish, and UK production lines; without them, Airbus would be a glorified Toulouse workshop. And don’t even start with the “CFM is 50/50 parity” fantasy- GE holds the crown jewels (hot section IP), Safran’s basically the subsystem contractor with good PR. Eurodrone being “dubious” is just lazy sneering; Europe is tired of begging Uncle Sam for Reapers like it’s 2009- they need sovereignty, and yes, that means coughing up money for their own kit. And yeah, Leclerc was a good breakthrough in a boutique way, but Leopard 2 absolutely steamrolled the market- mass exports, continuous upgrades, frontline credibility. Germany owns the armor crown in Europe, and pretending otherwise is just fanboy denial.

 

[智子 伊瀬]

Japan “violating” restrictions by dangling XF9 tech to India is the kind of cope people cling to when they don’t understand how arms export loopholes actually work- it was an offer, not a crate of engines on a ship to Mumbai with the 'Atmanirbhar sticker'. Did you really think that India would get a '100% ToT and IP' for the engine? Please. Japan would NEVER let that through- those same export controls continue haunting any deal like that. And spare me the “Tornado bad, F-14 perfect” drivel: the Tomcat was a diva that ate engines for breakfast (F110 swap ring a bell?), guzzled cash, and spent more time on the deck than in the air; the Tornado wasn’t glamorous, but it did the dirty NATO jobs that actually mattered- mud-moving, SEAD, recon instead of starring in Hollywood. “Nuclear bombs outdated in the ’80s”? Cute take, except NATO’s B61s are still sitting under German soil right now, and Washington’s still modernizing them- deterrence doesn’t “expire” just because some guy on the internet thinks it should. France walking away from Tornado wasn’t a masterstroke, it was because their Mirage G program belly-flopped and they needed to salvage Mirage 2000 as their one halfway-credible fighter. Airbus being headquartered in Blagnac is not some epic mic-drop- it’s a pan-European Frankenstein with major German, Spanish, and UK production lines; without them, Airbus would be a glorified Toulouse workshop. And don’t even start with the “CFM is 50/50 parity” fantasy- GE holds the crown jewels (hot section IP), Safran’s basically the subsystem contractor with good PR. Eurodrone being “dubious” is just lazy sneering; Europe is tired of begging Uncle Sam for Reapers like it’s 2009- they need sovereignty, and yes, that means coughing up money for their own kit. And yeah, Leclerc was a good breakthrough in a boutique way, but Leopard 2 absolutely steamrolled the market- mass exports, continuous upgrades, frontline credibility. Germany owns the armor crown in Europe, and pretending otherwise is just fanboy denial.

It is not a problem to sell the XF9 technology, as the Reppu (Japanese name for the local version of the GCAP) will have an even more powerful engine. The restrictions, fortunately, are already being actively lifted, the recent export of the Mogami to Australia is an example. Until 2014, Japan could only sell weapons to the US, in this case the F-2, since Japanese law allowed the sale of jointly developed weapons to a partner. Only the US was not interested in the F-2 at all, therefore export was impossible.
Japan have already agreed to transfer the Unicorn mast technology to India.
 Yes, nuclear bombs are obsolete, since aircraft simply do not reach their target. Tactical nuclear weapons are better based on cruise missiles, which at least have a chance to reach their target and there is no risk of losing the bomb carrier. In the 21st century, a technologically advanced enemy will make the use of "dumb" bombs useless, leaving only ballistic and cruise missiles. Mirage 2000 became serial only because Giscard wanted it at a personal meeting with Dassault, and not Mirage 4000, which was what the French Air Force wanted. Mirage 2000 began to be designed after the Mirage G project was closed.
Eurodrone is a weapon of the past, the war in Ukraine has shown that large drones do not last long. Well, at least it can be converted into a reconnaissance drone, otherwise it would have been a complete failure

 

[Snowstrike]

It is not a problem to sell the XF9 technology, as the Reppu (Japanese name for the local version of the GCAP) will have an even more powerful engine. The restrictions, fortunately, are already being actively lifted, the recent export of the Mogami to Australia is an example. Until 2014, Japan could only sell weapons to the US, in this case the F-2, since Japanese law allowed the sale of jointly developed weapons to a partner. Only the US was not interested in the F-2 at all, therefore export was impossible.
Japan have already agreed to transfer the Unicorn mast technology to India.
 Yes, nuclear bombs are obsolete, since aircraft simply do not reach their target. Tactical nuclear weapons are better based on cruise missiles, which at least have a chance to reach their target and there is no risk of losing the bomb carrier. In the 21st century, a technologically advanced enemy will make the use of "dumb" bombs useless, leaving only ballistic and cruise missiles. Mirage 2000 became serial only because Giscard wanted it at a personal meeting with Dassault, and not Mirage 4000, which was what the French Air Force wanted. Mirage 2000 began to be designed after the Mirage G project was closed.
Eurodrone is a weapon of the past, the war in Ukraine has shown that large drones do not last long. Well, at least it can be converted into a reconnaissance drone, otherwise it would have been a complete failure

Ah yes, more bullshit. Time to unwrap this enigma of a mystery. Your rant reads like it was stitched together from half-baked headlines without the basic courtesy of fact-checking. Let’s start with this fantasy about Japan “selling XF9 technology”- absolutely not happening. The XF9 is a national crown jewel, a 15–16 ton thrust class demonstrator with ceramic matrix composites, high-temp single-crystal blades, and next-gen afterburner design. Japan has guarded even less sensitive tech far more closely; the fact that they share limited XF9-related research under GCAP with the UK and Italy is already unprecedented. To suggest they’d just throw it over the fence to HAL- a partner with zero track record in high-performance jet cores- is laughable.

Your Mogami frigate example is equally irrelevant. Exporting a mid-sized surface combatant to a security partner like Australia doesn’t mean Japan will start handing out next-gen turbine IP like candy. Naval exports have always been the soft end of defense trade- engines and radar source codes are where states never compromise. Even the US has denied closest allies like the UK and Israel access to certain engine core IP. You seriously think Tokyo is about to break precedent and let New Delhi crack open their most advanced turbine? Please.

The nuclear argument is just as flimsy. Declaring nuclear bombs “obsolete” is strategic illiteracy. NATO continues to fund the B61-12 life extension program and integrate it on F-35s. Russia has kept the gravity-bomb role alive through the Su-24 and Su-34. China still fields free-fall nukes with its H-6. Even India’s Mirage 2000H fleet is maintained for nuclear delivery. Tactical nukes on cruise or ballistic missiles complement gravity bombs- they don’t replace them. Saying aircraft “can’t reach targets” in the 21st century is exactly why strike packages are built around SEAD, EW, stealth, and tanking. If your logic held, the US wouldn’t have invested billions in the B-21 Raider to carry both stand-off and direct-attack nuclear payloads. But sure, someone on a forum cracked the nuclear strategy of the world powers.

Now onto French aviation. The Mirage 4000 was Dassault’s oversized vanity project- a twin-engine demonstrator that nobody ordered. The Mirage 2000 was the pragmatic answer: cheaper, versatile, exportable. It entered production because it worked and because foreign buyers actually signed contracts. Giscard’s alleged “personal push” was politics smoothing over Dassault’s survival, not some proof that Mirage 2000 was inferior. Numbers don’t lie: Mirage 2000 sold to 9 countries, fought in multiple wars, and remained in service for decades. Mirage 4000? Museum piece.

Your Eurodrone dismissal shows the same shallow pattern. The Ukraine war did not suddenly make MALE UAVs obsolete- what it showed was that cheap commercial drones without survivability or C2 infrastructure get swatted like flies in contested zones. Meanwhile, Reaper, SkyGuardian/Protector, Wing Loong, and Bayraktar continue to be procured and exported globally. Eurodrone is about sovereignty and industrial experience- keeping Europe in the game on medium-altitude long-endurance systems rather than ceding everything to the US or China. To call it “a failure” before first flight is just lazy commentary.

Bottom line: your narrative is a Frankenstein of cherry-picked myths, false equivalencies, and bad hot takes. You’re mixing apples (frigates) with oranges (engine IP), calling globally relevant nuclear doctrines “obsolete” because you read one thinkpiece, and pretending Dassault’s sales record doesn’t exist. If you’re going to posture as some defense analyst, at least do the basic homework. Right now, it reads less like an argument and more like a tirade.