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.

 

[智子 伊瀬]

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.

There is simply nowhere to install the XF9 at the moment, since the F-3 project was merged with the Tempest and the Japanese version of the GCAP will have new advanced engines. It is more profitable to simply sell the data on the XF9 program to cover the costs of Shinshin, XF5, XF9 and have funds for further development within the GCAP. Export restrictions have already been lifted, after all, Putin helped this happen twice, first in 2014, then in 2022. Mogami, and an improved version at that, is one of the most advanced Japanese naval technologies. That is, the US gave the F-16 source codes to the Turks several decades ago. Israel does not need its own engines, since Israel has not built its own aircraft for a long time, but the US was ready to supply a package of technologies within the framework of licensed production of PW1120 engines at the Beit-Shemesh enterprise. However, this turned out to be unnecessary, since Israel did not have money for the Lavi project. The US transferred various technologies to Britain, from small arms to nuclear secrets, even London does not hide this. Well, Reagan offered Britain the F-117 back in the 80s. The US was also ready to transfer radar technology for the future Typhoon (and through a British company), but the consortium chose the development based on Blue Vixen. I do not see any problem selling the developments on the XF9 for the same price that Safran offers for the development of a new engine for AMCA. Neither the various versions of Tejas, nor AMCA, nor TEDBF can compete with GCAP in any way, since these are different technological levels and even weight categories. The F-2 has no export potential, since its production ended long ago. Nuclear bombs are only good as finishing weapons, but this can be done by other methods. France and Britain have abandoned the use of nuclear bombs in favor of cruise or ballistic missiles. The Su-24 will soon be decommissioned, Russia traditionally relies on ballistic missiles for nuclear deterrence. The B-21 Raider will be capable of carrying nuclear cruise missiles, but in general, a strategic bomber in the second half of the 21st century is a very dubious asset. The takeoff of bombers is tracked by satellites, the number of which is actively increasing by China. During the current war in Europe, the United States transmits data to Ukraine about the impending strike even before the Russian bombers begin to launch missiles. The Mirage 4000 was literally what the French Air Force wanted, but Giscard decided to choose the Mirage 2000 in a personal meeting with Marcel Dassault. However, the Mirage 2000 also proved itself to be a good fighter and attack aircraft. Who would buy a fighter (M4000) that is not in service with the country of manufacture? The F-20 has failed in the same way, or the MiG-35. The Eurodrone looks like a relic of the "War on Terror" era in 2025. The Bayraktar TB2 or Orion have become very rare examples on the battlefield, while kamikaze drones appear more and more often. At least the Akinci can launch cruise missiles, as can the new modification of the Orion, the rest are even behind in this regard and carry something like Hellfire.

 

[Snowstrike]

There is simply nowhere to install the XF9 at the moment, since the F-3 project was merged with the Tempest and the Japanese version of the GCAP will have new advanced engines. It is more profitable to simply sell the data on the XF9 program to cover the costs of Shinshin, XF5, XF9 and have funds for further development within the GCAP. Export restrictions have already been lifted, after all, Putin helped this happen twice, first in 2014, then in 2022. Mogami, and an improved version at that, is one of the most advanced Japanese naval technologies. That is, the US gave the F-16 source codes to the Turks several decades ago. Israel does not need its own engines, since Israel has not built its own aircraft for a long time, but the US was ready to supply a package of technologies within the framework of licensed production of PW1120 engines at the Beit-Shemesh enterprise. However, this turned out to be unnecessary, since Israel did not have money for the Lavi project. The US transferred various technologies to Britain, from small arms to nuclear secrets, even London does not hide this. Well, Reagan offered Britain the F-117 back in the 80s. The US was also ready to transfer radar technology for the future Typhoon (and through a British company), but the consortium chose the development based on Blue Vixen. I do not see any problem selling the developments on the XF9 for the same price that Safran offers for the development of a new engine for AMCA. Neither the various versions of Tejas, nor AMCA, nor TEDBF can compete with GCAP in any way, since these are different technological levels and even weight categories. The F-2 has no export potential, since its production ended long ago. Nuclear bombs are only good as finishing weapons, but this can be done by other methods. France and Britain have abandoned the use of nuclear bombs in favor of cruise or ballistic missiles. The Su-24 will soon be decommissioned, Russia traditionally relies on ballistic missiles for nuclear deterrence. The B-21 Raider will be capable of carrying nuclear cruise missiles, but in general, a strategic bomber in the second half of the 21st century is a very dubious asset. The takeoff of bombers is tracked by satellites, the number of which is actively increasing by China. During the current war in Europe, the United States transmits data to Ukraine about the impending strike even before the Russian bombers begin to launch missiles. The Mirage 4000 was literally what the French Air Force wanted, but Giscard decided to choose the Mirage 2000 in a personal meeting with Marcel Dassault. However, the Mirage 2000 also proved itself to be a good fighter and attack aircraft. Who would buy a fighter (M4000) that is not in service with the country of manufacture? The F-20 has failed in the same way, or the MiG-35. The Eurodrone looks like a relic of the "War on Terror" era in 2025. The Bayraktar TB2 or Orion have become very rare examples on the battlefield, while kamikaze drones appear more and more often. At least the Akinci can launch cruise missiles, as can the new modification of the Orion, the rest are even behind in this regard and carry something like Hellfire.

Your argument is once again a patchwork of half-digested trivia and bad logic. Let’s go point by point, since you clearly struggle with cohesion. First, the XF9- this is not some “dead-end” orphan engine with nowhere to go. It is the direct technology base feeding GCAP propulsion, and Japan isn’t about to “sell the data” like it’s offloading second-hand electronics. No serious nation parts with crown-jewel turbofan tech because it underpins decades of industrial sovereignty. This isn't some 'Garage Sale' where Japan puts up the keys to their house for $5. The “export restrictions” point is equally sloppy- Japan lifted portions of its ban only under extremely strict frameworks, and even then, its defense export record remains minuscule compared to any NATO state. Your Mogami take is laughable: yes, it’s advanced, but let’s not pretend Japan just exported its deepest naval crown jewels.

Next, your claim about Turkey and F-16 source codes is pure fantasy. Ankara never got full access- what it has is partial integration rights, not the underlying crown-jewel software. Stop inflating myths. Israel, meanwhile, didn’t “need” engines because the Lavi project collapsed under cost pressure and US political strangling, not because “PW1120 tech” was sitting on a shelf waiting for them. Your sudden nostalgia tour through Reagan, Blue Vixen, and the Mirage 4000 just exposes the weakness of your case padding an argument with this seems like desperation. As for the F-117- The US never offered it to the UK, not during any presidency, and not under Reagan either- I can't even begin to fathom where you got that information from. The Mirage 4000 was not just abandoned because of 'some guys ego', it was a giant combination of factors- a rabbit hole if you want to get into it. You just seem to like to post half-baked Instagram-level comments on a defense forum. And now the 'blue vixen' thing- the US did not offer the ToT or source codes for the radar for eurofighter. It was a black box, hence the consortium chose the European option.

Your nuclear/strategic bomber claim is comical too. If “bombers are obsolete because satellites track them,” explain why the US is spending tens of billions on the B-21 Raider, or why China is developing the H-20. Nations don’t throw that kind of money at “dubious assets.” The whole point of stealth bombers is penetrating networks exactly like those you cite, and they remain a critical arm of nuclear triads worldwide. France and Britain “abandoning bombs” is also lazy framing- they retained airborne nuclear deterrence through ASMP-A cruise missiles, not some magical disarmament. They are called 'STEALTH' bombers for a reason- they don't light up like a billboard and are hard to track.

Finally, your take on drones reeks of surface-level observation. Yes, large drones are vulnerable in contested airspace, but dismissing Eurodrone as a “relic” while praising Akinci as though it’s untouchable just shows selective blindness. Every nation is iterating drone doctrine; Ukraine’s war has accelerated loitering munition use, but that doesn’t erase the utility of HALE/MALE platforms for ISR, strike coordination, and stand-off launch roles. Eurodrone's primary purpose is ISTAR. You know, the thing where they DONT fly into the jaws of SAMs? they carry a payload too, but the fact remains- Eurodrone is for Intelligence, Surveillance, Target acquisition, and Reconnaissance (ISTAR).

In short: you’re not constructing arguments, you’re reciting trivia about complex military history like Pokemon cards. XF9 is not “for sale,” Turkey didn’t get F-16 codes, bombers aren’t obsolete, US didn't offer radar tech, Mirage 4000 wasn't because of your favorite CEO's tantrum, and padding your post with random Cold War anecdotes doesn’t make you look informed- it makes you look like you’re hoping nobody notices the lack of logic.

 

[智子 伊瀬]

Your argument is once again a patchwork of half-digested trivia and bad logic. Let’s go point by point, since you clearly struggle with cohesion. First, the XF9- this is not some “dead-end” orphan engine with nowhere to go. It is the direct technology base feeding GCAP propulsion, and Japan isn’t about to “sell the data” like it’s offloading second-hand electronics. No serious nation parts with crown-jewel turbofan tech because it underpins decades of industrial sovereignty. This isn't some 'Garage Sale' where Japan puts up the keys to their house for $5. The “export restrictions” point is equally sloppy- Japan lifted portions of its ban only under extremely strict frameworks, and even then, its defense export record remains minuscule compared to any NATO state. Your Mogami take is laughable: yes, it’s advanced, but let’s not pretend Japan just exported its deepest naval crown jewels.

Next, your claim about Turkey and F-16 source codes is pure fantasy. Ankara never got full access- what it has is partial integration rights, not the underlying crown-jewel software. Stop inflating myths. Israel, meanwhile, didn’t “need” engines because the Lavi project collapsed under cost pressure and US political strangling, not because “PW1120 tech” was sitting on a shelf waiting for them. Your sudden nostalgia tour through Reagan, Blue Vixen, and the Mirage 4000 just exposes the weakness of your case padding an argument with this seems like desperation. As for the F-117- The US never offered it to the UK, not during any presidency, and not under Reagan either- I can't even begin to fathom where you got that information from. The Mirage 4000 was not just abandoned because of 'some guys ego', it was a giant combination of factors- a rabbit hole if you want to get into it. You just seem to like to post half-baked Instagram-level comments on a defense forum. And now the 'blue vixen' thing- the US did not offer the ToT or source codes for the radar for eurofighter. It was a black box, hence the consortium chose the European option.

Your nuclear/strategic bomber claim is comical too. If “bombers are obsolete because satellites track them,” explain why the US is spending tens of billions on the B-21 Raider, or why China is developing the H-20. Nations don’t throw that kind of money at “dubious assets.” The whole point of stealth bombers is penetrating networks exactly like those you cite, and they remain a critical arm of nuclear triads worldwide. France and Britain “abandoning bombs” is also lazy framing- they retained airborne nuclear deterrence through ASMP-A cruise missiles, not some magical disarmament. They are called 'STEALTH' bombers for a reason- they don't light up like a billboard and are hard to track.

Finally, your take on drones reeks of surface-level observation. Yes, large drones are vulnerable in contested airspace, but dismissing Eurodrone as a “relic” while praising Akinci as though it’s untouchable just shows selective blindness. Every nation is iterating drone doctrine; Ukraine’s war has accelerated loitering munition use, but that doesn’t erase the utility of HALE/MALE platforms for ISR, strike coordination, and stand-off launch roles. Eurodrone's primary purpose is ISTAR. You know, the thing where they DONT fly into the jaws of SAMs? they carry a payload too, but the fact remains- Eurodrone is for Intelligence, Surveillance, Target acquisition, and Reconnaissance (ISTAR).

In short: you’re not constructing arguments, you’re reciting trivia about complex military history like Pokemon cards. XF9 is not “for sale,” Turkey didn’t get F-16 codes, bombers aren’t obsolete, US didn't offer radar tech, Mirage 4000 wasn't because of your favorite CEO's tantrum, and padding your post with random Cold War anecdotes doesn’t make you look informed- it makes you look like you’re hoping nobody notices the lack of logic.

Pure pragmatism. For $7 billion, Japan can sell the XF9 developments and develop a new engine for Reppu without any problems. There is really nowhere to put the XF9, it will simply become the basis for a new engine for the Japanese version of the GCAP. They will agree if you offer a lot of money, especially since India has good relations with all Western countries except the USA (although the issue of duties can also be resolved), although the US even for relatively little money leaked technology to China in the 80-90s. Australia's Mogami will be the same version as the future batch of Mogami for Japan. Naturally, Japanese weapons are more expensive than weapons from any NATO country, Korea, Israel and others, since they were produced for decades in small quantities for the self-defense forces and were never sold abroad. It is much simpler that the US simply did not want to finance Lavi further, and Israel, as usual, did not have money (Even the F-35 and F-15IA were bought by American money), although PW had agreements with Beit-Shemesh. As you can see, Turkey has the source code for the F-16 block 30,40,50. Recently declassified materials show that Britain received an offer for the F-117 during the Thatcher era, as for the Mirage 4000, the French Air Force begged Dassault for a similar fighter for over a decade. The US was ready to provide it, but the Blue Vixen option was pushed through. I have no idea why the US and China are spending tens of billions on something that has already been quietly tracked from space this decade. The US constantly manages to waste money on useless concepts like the A-12 Avenger II, RAH-66 Comache, YAL-1. France and Britain have abandoned bombs because they are useless, cruise missiles are more reliable and less risky for pilots. Akinci has long been a serial drone, it is capable of carrying cruise missiles with a range of 200-300 kilometers. That is, it already has an advantage over the Reaper, which still uses Hellfire. Although, of course, the main role is now played by kamikazes and reconnaissance UAV.

 

[Snowstrike]

Pure pragmatism. For $7 billion, Japan can sell the XF9 developments and develop a new engine for Reppu without any problems. There is really nowhere to put the XF9, it will simply become the basis for a new engine for the Japanese version of the GCAP. They will part ways if you offer a lot of money, although the US even for relatively little money leaked technology to China in the 80-90s. Australia's Mogami will be the same version as the future batch of Mogami for Japan. Naturally, Japanese weapons are more expensive than weapons from any NATO country, Korea, Israel and others, since they were produced for decades in small quantities for the self-defense forces and were never sold abroad. It is much simpler that the US simply did not want to finance Lavi further, and Israel, as usual, did not have money (Even the F-35 and F-15IA were bought by American money), although PW had agreements with Beit-Shemesh. As you can see, Turkey has the source code for the F-16 block 30,40,50. Recently declassified materials show that Britain received an offer for the F-117 during the Thatcher era, as for the Mirage 4000, the French Air Force begged Dassault for a similar fighter for over a decade. The US was ready to provide it, but the Blue Vixen option was pushed through. I have no idea why the US and China are spending tens of billions on something that has already been quietly tracked from space this decade. France and Britain have abandoned bombs because they are useless, cruise missiles are more reliable and less risky for pilots. Akinci has long been a serial drone, it is capable of carrying cruise missiles with a range of 200-300 kilometers. That is, it already has an advantage over the Reaper, which still uses Hellfire. Although, of course, the main role is now played by kamikazes and reconnaissance UAV.

Your little rant is the usual cocktail of half-truths, misreads, and random Wikipedia scraps duct-taped together. First off, Japan is not "selling off XF9 developments" for $7 billion like it’s a clearance sale at Walmart- it’s one of the most advanced turbofan demonstrators ever built, designed specifically for sixth-gen GCAP and potentially AMCA. You don’t just auction that off like used car parts. And no, there is a place to put it- Japan has repeatedly emphasized XF9 derivatives will be the baseline for their GCAP contribution, so stop pretending it’s some homeless orphan engine. Your attempt to equate this to the U.S. "leaking tech to China in the ’80s" is laughably off-base- that was about machine tools and civilian aerospace, not frontline stealth jet engines.

Australia’s Mogami being "the same" as Japan’s is another facepalm. Export models are always de-tuned or altered; Japan literally stripped features from the Soryu-derived submarines before even offering them. Your claim that Japanese kit is "more expensive than NATO or Israel" is half-true but misses the reason: Japan designs for self-sufficiency, low volume, and absurdly high tolerances. That’s not "worse," that’s a feature of their procurement system.

Then you wander into the Lavi like you’re writing fan fiction. The Lavi was killed by budget politics, not some cartoonish “Israel always broke” narrative- Israel redirected funds because the U.S. offered F-16C/Ds dirt cheap. The PW1120 program at Beit-Shemesh was a serious deal; pretending it was "unnecessary" just exposes your lack of reading comprehension.

The "Turkey has the F-16 source codes" meme is even dumber -no, they had partial access to older blocks under license for basic screwdriver integration of indigenous weapons, which is not the same as full software sovereignty. Nice try rewriting history, champ. And the Thatcher F-117 fantasy? Another classic. The U.S. never gave the UK stealth strike aircraft; they shared technology collaboration selectively. Britain got access to some stealth research, not a free squadron of Nighthawks.

As for your Mirage 4000 and Blue Vixen babble, you’ve clearly mashed unrelated timelines. The Mirage 4000 predates the Eurofighter saga by over a decade; Dassault couldn’t even sell it to its own government, while the Mirage 2000 was the superior option- it was not cancelled because of some guy's 'ego move'. Your Giscard point is dead wrong. Oh, and you seem to think the US is oh-so benevolent for offering a radar for the Eurofighter- yeah, it was a black box, with definitely no access to real tech, which is the consortium chose the European option.

Your bomber rant is equally brain-dead. Saying "satellites track bombers so they’re useless" ignores the entire doctrine of long-range standoff weapons. It also ignores EVERY physics principle possible- satellites are not the be all end all. Bombers are meant to be invisible to the enemy, even to your nonexistent so-called 'bomber detecting satellites'. The U.S. and China aren’t spending tens of billions on stealth bombers because they’re stupid- they’re doing it because penetrating strike capability remains critical in contested A2/AD environments. If you think a few satellites make bombers obsolete, congratulations, you’ve just outsmarted every defense ministry on Earth.

And finally, your drone take is kindergarten level. Yes, Akinci can carry SOM-like cruise missiles- congrats, Turkey discovered 1990s tech. Comparing that to the MQ-9 Reaper is apples and rocks; Reaper operates in a NATO network-centric environment with precision strike and ISR dominance. And no, "kamikazes and recon aircraft" don’t replace HALE/MALE drones, they complement them. That’s like saying bicycles make trucks useless.

In short: your "analysis" reads like you swallowed three half-translated defense blogs, misunderstood all of them, and then sprinkled in your own biases and rhetoric. Next time, try facts-they sting less when someone points out how wrong you are.

 

[智子 伊瀬]

Your little rant is the usual cocktail of half-truths, misreads, and random Wikipedia scraps duct-taped together. First off, Japan is not "selling off XF9 developments" for $7 billion like it’s a clearance sale at Walmart- it’s one of the most advanced turbofan demonstrators ever built, designed specifically for sixth-gen GCAP and potentially AMCA. You don’t just auction that off like used car parts. And no, there is a place to put it- Japan has repeatedly emphasized XF9 derivatives will be the baseline for their GCAP contribution, so stop pretending it’s some homeless orphan engine. Your attempt to equate this to the U.S. "leaking tech to China in the ’80s" is laughably off-base- that was about machine tools and civilian aerospace, not frontline stealth jet engines.

Australia’s Mogami being "the same" as Japan’s is another facepalm. Export models are always de-tuned or altered; Japan literally stripped features from the Soryu-derived submarines before even offering them. Your claim that Japanese kit is "more expensive than NATO or Israel" is half-true but misses the reason: Japan designs for self-sufficiency, low volume, and absurdly high tolerances. That’s not "worse," that’s a feature of their procurement system.

Then you wander into the Lavi like you’re writing fan fiction. The Lavi was killed by budget politics, not some cartoonish “Israel always broke” narrative- Israel redirected funds because the U.S. offered F-16C/Ds dirt cheap. The PW1120 program at Beit-Shemesh was a serious deal; pretending it was "unnecessary" just exposes your lack of reading comprehension.

The "Turkey has the F-16 source codes" meme is even dumber -no, they had partial access to older blocks under license for basic screwdriver integration of indigenous weapons, which is not the same as full software sovereignty. Nice try rewriting history, champ. And the Thatcher F-117 fantasy? Another classic. The U.S. never gave the UK stealth strike aircraft; they shared technology collaboration selectively. Britain got access to some stealth research, not a free squadron of Nighthawks.

As for your Mirage 4000 and Blue Vixen babble, you’ve clearly mashed unrelated timelines. The Mirage 4000 predates the Eurofighter saga by over a decade; Dassault couldn’t even sell it to its own government, while the Mirage 2000 was the superior option- it was not cancelled because of some guy's 'ego move'. Your Giscard point is dead wrong. Oh, and you seem to think the US is oh-so benevolent for offering a radar for the Eurofighter- yeah, it was a black box, with definitely no access to real tech, which is the consortium chose the European option.

Your bomber rant is equally brain-dead. Saying "satellites track bombers so they’re useless" ignores the entire doctrine of long-range standoff weapons. It also ignores EVERY physics principle possible- satellites are not the be all end all. Bombers are meant to be invisible to the enemy, even to your nonexistent so-called 'bomber detecting satellites'. The U.S. and China aren’t spending tens of billions on stealth bombers because they’re stupid- they’re doing it because penetrating strike capability remains critical in contested A2/AD environments. If you think a few satellites make bombers obsolete, congratulations, you’ve just outsmarted every defense ministry on Earth.

And finally, your drone take is kindergarten level. Yes, Akinci can carry SOM-like cruise missiles- congrats, Turkey discovered 1990s tech. Comparing that to the MQ-9 Reaper is apples and rocks; Reaper operates in a NATO network-centric environment with precision strike and ISR dominance. And no, "kamikazes and recon aircraft" don’t replace HALE/MALE drones, they complement them. That’s like saying bicycles make trucks useless.

In short: your "analysis" reads like you swallowed three half-translated defense blogs, misunderstood all of them, and then sprinkled in your own biases and rhetoric. Next time, try facts-they sting less when someone points out how wrong you are.

The XF9 has nowhere to go, it was created for the Mitsubishi F-3, which was merged with the British Tempest in GCAP. In its current form, it is ownerless, so the engine technology can be sold to India, which is clearly not hostile, since the Reppu will have a more advanced engine. India is not subject to restrictions, since there was an agreement on the transfer of stealth mast technology, against the background of the recent meeting of Ishiba and Modi, the partnership will only strengthen. I don’t care, our weapons are bought by those who want and who need, like the Philippines and Australia. Japan agreed to transfer technology for the advanced version of the Mogami. It's much simpler if the weapon is made only for Japan, then its batch will be small, which directly affects the cost + the expensive yen due to the Plaza agreements also made the weapon more expensive.
Turkey has had full access to the code of the "medium" modifications of the F-16 since 2011. Why would the American taxpayer finance a Jewish plane? Without the Americans, Israel was not able to finance the Lavi. By the way, the Lavi itself is a very good story about the transfer of technology from the USA, but even under such favorable conditions, Israel did not master the development. The F-117 was offered to Britain under Reagan.

Keep the French in the dark: Thatcher's secret push for US military technology

Files released to National Archives reveal how UK ministers favoured US satellite system over European rival

www.theguardian.com

Reagan Personally Invited Thatcher To Join The Top Secret F-117 Program

The UK Ministry Of Defense was invited to join the highly elite stealth combat aircraft club far earlier than anyone previously realized.

www.twz.com

The US agreed to transfer the technology for the Typhoon radar. As for the Mirage 4000, the French air forces wanted it, but the political choice was made in favor of the Mirage 2000, as evidenced by that meeting between Dassault and Giscard. It is enough to remember when the development of the future Typhoon began and what France proposed as the basis for the project (that same Mirage 4000). Satellites track the movements of not only bombers, but also large targets such as the RQ-4, as proven by the Chinese military. Since when did the Ministries of Defense stop corruption and the like, judging by the RAH-66, A-12, YAL-1 and the like?

Akinci is capable of a long-range strike, something the "strike" MQ-9 is not capable of. That's the only difference, the US didn't even disgrace itself by supplying MQ-9 to Ukraine, although GA itself offered to supply them for "1 dollar".

 

[Snowstrike]

The XF9 has nowhere to go, it was created for the Mitsubishi F-3, which was merged with the British Tempest in GCAP. In its current form, it is ownerless, so the engine technology can be sold to India, which is clearly not hostile, since the Reppu will have a more advanced engine. India is not subject to restrictions, since there was an agreement on the transfer of stealth mast technology, against the background of the recent meeting of Ishiba and Modi, the partnership will only strengthen. I don’t care, our weapons are bought by those who want and who need, like the Philippines and Australia. Japan agreed to transfer technology for the advanced version of the Mogami. It's much simpler if the weapon is made only for Japan, then its batch will be small, which directly affects the cost + the expensive yen due to the Plaza agreements also made the weapon more expensive.
Turkey has had full access to the code of the "medium" modifications of the F-16 since 2011. Why would the American taxpayer finance a Jewish plane? Without the Americans, Israel was not able to finance the Lavi. By the way, the Lavi itself is a very good story about the transfer of technology from the USA, but even under such favorable conditions, Israel did not master the development. The F-117 was offered to Britain under Reagan.

Keep the French in the dark: Thatcher's secret push for US military technology

Files released to National Archives reveal how UK ministers favoured US satellite system over European rival

www.theguardian.com

Reagan Personally Invited Thatcher To Join The Top Secret F-117 Program

The UK Ministry Of Defense was invited to join the highly elite stealth combat aircraft club far earlier than anyone previously realized.

www.twz.com

The US agreed to transfer the technology for the Typhoon radar. As for the Mirage 4000, the French air forces wanted it, but the political choice was made in favor of the Mirage 2000, as evidenced by that meeting between Dassault and Giscard. It is enough to remember when the development of the future Typhoon began and what France proposed as the basis for the project (that same Mirage 4000). Satellites track the movements of not only bombers, but also large targets such as the RQ-4, as proven by the Chinese military. Since when did the Ministries of Defense stop fighting corruption and the like, judging by the RAH-66, A-12, YAL-1 and the like?

Akinci is capable of a long-range strike, something the "strike" MQ-9 is not capable of. That's the only difference, the US didn't even disgrace itself by supplying MQ-9 to Ukraine, although GA itself offered to supply them for "1 dollar".

You’re throwing around points like they’re facts, but every single one collapses the second you drag them out of your little fantasy bubble. Let’s start with this nonsense about the XF9 being “ownerless.” That’s laughable. The XF9 is Japan’s crown jewel, developed by IHI with over a decade of classified funding, and is going to be injected into the GCAP. It is the whole foundation of Japan's GCAP engine contribution. It is not a 'Garage Sale' for for India to “buy” because a forum warrior decides it’s suddenly “free real estate.” Japan’s defense exports are some of the most restrictive in the world- they won’t even let their closest ally touch sensitive F-2 systems without safeguards. But sure, keep pretending they’d hand over full IP of a sixth-gen turbofan when they guard even minor subsystems like it’s Fort Knox.

And this “stealth mast transfer” you’re trying to equate to an engine core? That’s the weakest bait-and-switch I’ve ever seen. A mast is modular hardware. A fighter engine core is national crown-jewel IP that determines your entire aerospace future. The fact you’re comparing the two tells me you don’t even understand the scale of what you’re talking about.

Then you ramble about Turkey supposedly having “full access” to F-16 source codes since 2011. If they had “full codes,” explain why Ankara is still begging Washington for Block 70 kits, why their MLU packages are limited, and why they scrambled like madmen after getting booted from the F-35 program. If you had full source code, you wouldn’t be this dependent. They got limited rights for basic weapons integration, not carte blanche into Lockheed’s crown jewels. You’re either parroting propaganda or you genuinely don’t know the difference between “integration rights” and “full access".

Dragging in the Lavi story doesn’t save you either. Yes, Israel had U.S. support, and yes, it still collapsed under cost and complexity. Congratulations- you just proved how hard building a modern fighter is, even under favorable conditions. That’s not a flex, that’s an obituary.

Now, Mirage 4000. Let’s kill this fantasy once and for all. It wasn’t “robbed” from France- it died because it was too heavy, too expensive, and unsellable. Dassault pivoted to the Mirage 2000 because it was lighter, exportable, and actually practical. That’s called economics, not some grand conspiracy. The Eurofighter program’s foundations were multinational requirements, not France crying in a corner about the Mirage 4000. As for the Eurofighter, the US never offered ToT like you claim- they offered a black box to Europe, which would make them even more dependent on Uncle Sam than they already are.

And the F-117 angle? Please. Reagan did not “offer core tech” of the F-117 to Britain. The UK was briefed late in the program, and even then, it was tightly controlled. ToT was never on the table. This revisionist “UK was offered stealth fighters like party favors” nonsense is pure cope. The US offered another black box to the UK, which would make them even more reliant on American support in the future, plus the associated costs were too high and was not agreeable to Britain, hence, both offers were rejected.

Your satellite take is just as weak. “Satellites can track bombers, so stealth is obsolete.” Really? Satellites can also track tankers, carriers, and commercial airliners- all which have massive RCS' and are glowing billboards. They are not VLO aircraft with an RCS the size of a pebble like the B-2 and F-22. It doesn’t mean stealth fighters are useless. If stealth were actually obsolete, why are China, the U.S., Russia, and Japan all pouring billions into it right now? Spoiler: because stealth works. You don’t sink trillions into “obsolete.” That’s common sense, not classified intel. Good work rewriting reality, buddy. And congrats- apparently you've outsmarted every nation's top engineers, scientists, and planners.

As for parading Western project cancellations like the Comanche, A-12, or YAL-1 as proof of “corruption,” again, wrong. Cancellations happen everywhere, and the tech usually survives. The Comanche’s avionics went into the Apache, A-12 stealth tech informed later strike aircraft, and laser R&D from YAL-1 is still alive. Meanwhile, Turkey’s KAAN timeline slips every year-maybe don’t throw stones in that glass house.

And finally, your crown jewel- Akinci vs MQ-9. Congratulations, Akinci can strap a SOM missile under its wing and pretend it’s strategic. All that does is turn a slow, non-stealthy turboprop drone into an even juicier target. The MQ-9 doesn’t need to carry cruise missiles because the U.S. has bombers, subs, and stealth fighters for that. You’re comparing a duct-taped workaround to a deliberately specialized system. It’s lipstick on a goat, not a revolution in warfare.

So let me spell it out: the XF9 isn’t up for grabs, Japan won’t hand India its IP, Turkey never had full F-16 codes, Mirage 4000 wasn’t robbed, the F-117 was never going to happen, stealth isn’t obsolete just because satellites exist, canceled programs aren’t proof of corruption, and bolting cruise missiles to a drone doesn’t make it credible. Every single “point” you’ve made dies under the weight of basic facts. So congrats, respected Keyboard Warrior- you've just proved that you are a political mouthpiece who does not care about facts or reality.

 

[智子 伊瀬]

You’re throwing around points like they’re facts, but every single one collapses the second you drag them out of your little fantasy bubble. Let’s start with this nonsense about the XF9 being “ownerless.” That’s laughable. The XF9 is Japan’s crown jewel, developed by IHI with over a decade of classified funding, and is going to be injected into the GCAP. It is the whole foundation of Japan's GCAP engine contribution. It is not a 'Garage Sale' for for India to “buy” because a forum warrior decides it’s suddenly “free real estate.” Japan’s defense exports are some of the most restrictive in the world- they won’t even let their closest ally touch sensitive F-2 systems without safeguards. But sure, keep pretending they’d hand over full IP of a sixth-gen turbofan when they guard even minor subsystems like it’s Fort Knox.

And this “stealth mast transfer” you’re trying to equate to an engine core? That’s the weakest bait-and-switch I’ve ever seen. A mast is modular hardware. A fighter engine core is national crown-jewel IP that determines your entire aerospace future. The fact you’re comparing the two tells me you don’t even understand the scale of what you’re talking about.

Then you ramble about Turkey supposedly having “full access” to F-16 source codes since 2011. If they had “full codes,” explain why Ankara is still begging Washington for Block 70 kits, why their MLU packages are limited, and why they scrambled like madmen after getting booted from the F-35 program. If you had full source code, you wouldn’t be this dependent. They got limited rights for basic weapons integration, not carte blanche into Lockheed’s crown jewels. You’re either parroting propaganda or you genuinely don’t know the difference between “integration rights” and “full access".

Dragging in the Lavi story doesn’t save you either. Yes, Israel had U.S. support, and yes, it still collapsed under cost and complexity. Congratulations- you just proved how hard building a modern fighter is, even under favorable conditions. That’s not a flex, that’s an obituary.

Now, Mirage 4000. Let’s kill this fantasy once and for all. It wasn’t “robbed” from France- it died because it was too heavy, too expensive, and unsellable. Dassault pivoted to the Mirage 2000 because it was lighter, exportable, and actually practical. That’s called economics, not some grand conspiracy. The Eurofighter program’s foundations were multinational requirements, not France crying in a corner about the Mirage 4000. As for the Eurofighter, the US never offered ToT like you claim- they offered a black box to Europe, which would make them even more dependent on Uncle Sam than they already are.

And the F-117 angle? Please. Reagan did not “offer core tech” of the F-117 to Britain. The UK was briefed late in the program, and even then, it was tightly controlled. ToT was never on the table. This revisionist “UK was offered stealth fighters like party favors” nonsense is pure cope. The US offered another black box to the UK, which would make them even more reliant on American support in the future, plus the associated costs were too high and was not agreeable to Britain, hence, both offers were rejected.

Your satellite take is just as weak. “Satellites can track bombers, so stealth is obsolete.” Really? Satellites can also track tankers, carriers, and commercial airliners- all which have massive RCS' and are glowing billboards. They are not VLO aircraft with an RCS the size of a pebble like the B-2 and F-22. It doesn’t mean stealth fighters are useless. If stealth were actually obsolete, why are China, the U.S., Russia, and Japan all pouring billions into it right now? Spoiler: because stealth works. You don’t sink trillions into “obsolete.” That’s common sense, not classified intel. Good work rewriting reality, buddy. And congrats- apparently you've outsmarted every nation's top engineers, scientists, and planners.

As for parading Western project cancellations like the Comanche, A-12, or YAL-1 as proof of “corruption,” again, wrong. Cancellations happen everywhere, and the tech usually survives. The Comanche’s avionics went into the Apache, A-12 stealth tech informed later strike aircraft, and laser R&D from YAL-1 is still alive. Meanwhile, Turkey’s KAAN timeline slips every year-maybe don’t throw stones in that glass house.

And finally, your crown jewel- Akinci vs MQ-9. Congratulations, Akinci can strap a SOM missile under its wing and pretend it’s strategic. All that does is turn a slow, non-stealthy turboprop drone into an even juicier target. The MQ-9 doesn’t need to carry cruise missiles because the U.S. has bombers, subs, and stealth fighters for that. You’re comparing a duct-taped workaround to a deliberately specialized system. It’s lipstick on a goat, not a revolution in warfare.

So let me spell it out: the XF9 isn’t up for grabs, Japan won’t hand India its IP, Turkey never had full F-16 codes, Mirage 4000 wasn’t robbed, the F-117 was never going to happen, stealth isn’t obsolete just because satellites exist, canceled programs aren’t proof of corruption, and bolting cruise missiles to a drone doesn’t make it credible. Every single “point” you’ve made dies under the weight of basic facts. So congrats, respected Keyboard Warrior- you've just proved that you are a political mouthpiece who does not care about facts or reality.

There is no place to put the XF9 in its current form, the Reppu will have a new advanced engine. Why shouldn't Japan sell the original XF9 if the deal with Safran is estimated at $7 billion? For that kind of money, Japan will develop a better engine for itself. It is even possible to provide the XF5 for Indian training aircraft if there is a request. The engine program has been known since the start of the i3 and development programs at Shinshin, it is not a secret. The F-2, according to some information, was offered to the Philippines, but I do not think that the Philippines will buy an aircraft that is no longer in production, which was very expensive even in the 90s. The point is that India does not leak technologies to China, India is ready to pay a lot of money and India is looking for allies. Therefore, the deal is in the interests of Japan. The stealth mast is also a new product of the Japanese military-industrial complex, like the improved Mogami. Turkey is upgrading the F-16 Block 30 to Özgür standards, replacing American avionics and electronics with Turkish ones. The F-16V will be purchased in parallel with the Özgür program, as well as the Typhoon Tranche 4. I know the topic, it's just that Turkey did not receive the source code for all versions of the aircraft, so the F-15 block 15 of the Pakistan Air Force cannot be upgraded by the Turks. Lavi is literally a saga about how the US transferred its technology and paid for it themselves 😂 Israel's defense spending at the time was around 20%, the US offered almost free F-16s, the Jews thought about it and decided to choose the F-16 at the expense of American taxpayers. Giscard decided the fate of the Mirage 4000 when he preferred the 2000. However, the Mirage 2000 also proved its effectiveness over 40+ years of service. This only shows that the US helped Britain with technology, even nuclear. And the French "shouldn't have known", as usual. Yes, satellites may soon make aircraft carriers an endangered species, since countries have started developing ballistic anti-ship missiles and short-range anti-ship cruise missiles. The low RCS of these aircraft is only at a limited angle + IR reconnaissance has not been canceled (Satellites perfectly see the takeoffs of Tu-95, Tu-160, RQ-4 and others). Japan, fortunately, does not invest a single yen in strategic bombers. Apache avionics would have developed even without spending on Comanche, the A-12 program managed to spend astronomical amounts without even building a prototype, YAL-1 is already closed. How is it shifting? The Turks launched it a year earlier than planned, and now the work schedule is the same as it was planned at the beginning of work on the fighter. So Turkey also has F-16, F-4, Typhoon and Kaan, which can also carry cruise missiles, so it is not necessary to use bombers for these purposes, the F-15 is capable of carrying a large number of cruise missiles. But it was the MQ-9 that was used, including for strikes on Yemen, but for some reason the Houthis began to shoot them down. If they had cruise missiles, they simply would not have gone into the Houthis' air defense zone.

I see the triumph of drones on the battlefield in Ukraine, I see that satellites track bomber takeoffs with high data processing speed, why can't I draw conclusions from this? Drones have made tanks an easy target, a $5,000 drone hits a €33,000,000 tank without much trouble. Then what's the point of buying tanks?

 

[Snowstrike]

There is no place to put the XF9 in its current form, the Reppu will have a new advanced engine. Why shouldn't Japan sell the original XF9 if the deal with Safran is estimated at $7 billion? For that kind of money, Japan will develop a better engine for itself. It is even possible to provide the XF5 for Indian training aircraft if there is a request. The engine program has been known since the start of the i3 and development programs at Shinshin, it is not a secret. The F-2, according to some information, was offered to the Philippines, but I do not think that the Philippines will buy an aircraft that is no longer in production, which was very expensive even in the 90s. The point is that India does not leak technologies to China, India is ready to pay a lot of money and India is looking for allies. Therefore, the deal is in the interests of Japan. The stealth mast is also a new product of the Japanese military-industrial complex, like the improved Mogami. Turkey is upgrading the F-16 Block 30 to Özgür standards, replacing American avionics and electronics with Turkish ones. The F-16V will be purchased in parallel with the Özgür program, as well as the Typhoon Tranche 4. I know the topic, it's just that Turkey did not receive the source code for all versions of the aircraft, so the F-15 block 15 of the Pakistan Air Force cannot be upgraded by the Turks. Lavi is literally a saga about how the US transferred its technology and paid for it themselves 😂 Israel's defense spending at the time was around 20%, the US offered almost free F-16s, the Jews thought about it and decided to choose the F-16 at the expense of American taxpayers. Giscard decided the fate of the Mirage 4000 when he preferred the 2000. However, the Mirage 2000 also proved its effectiveness over 40+ years of service. This only shows that the US helped Britain with technology, even nuclear. And the French "shouldn't have known", as usual. Yes, satellites may soon make aircraft carriers an endangered species, since countries have started developing ballistic anti-ship missiles and short-range anti-ship cruise missiles. The low RCS of these aircraft is only at a limited angle + IR reconnaissance has not been canceled (Satellites perfectly see the takeoffs of Tu-95, Tu-160, RQ-4 and others). Japan, fortunately, does not invest a single yen in strategic bombers. Apache avionics would have developed even without spending on Comanche, the A-12 program managed to spend astronomical amounts without even building a prototype, YAL-1 is already closed. How is it shifting? The Turks launched it a year earlier than planned, and now the work schedule is the same as it was planned at the beginning of work on the fighter. So Turkey also has F-16, F-4, Typhoon and Kaan, which can also carry cruise missiles, so it is not necessary to use bombers for these purposes, the F-15 is capable of carrying a large number of cruise missiles. But it was the MQ-9 that was used, including for strikes on Yemen, but for some reason the Houthis began to shoot them down. If they had cruise missiles, they simply would not have gone into the Houthis' air defense zone.

I see the triumph of drones on the battlefield in Ukraine, I see that satellites track bomber takeoffs with high data processing speed, why can't I draw conclusions from this? Drones have made tanks an easy target, a $5,000 drone hits a €33,000,000 tank without much trouble. Then what's the point of buying tanks?

Nice- another tirade based on political messaging and fake news! Time to rip this one apart again!

1) The XF9 is not some ownerless spare part Japan will dump for a one-time cheque. The XF9 is IHI’s cutting-edge demonstrator and a central piece of Japan’s next-gen propulsion roadmap; Tokyo is explicitly tying that work into international GCAP/Tempest-class development paths and commercialization plans, not auctioning the core IP on a whim. The Japanese themselves have said that the XF9 and its derivatives is their contribution to the GCAP engine. Selling a mature, classified turbofan core is not how sovereign industrial policy works; Japan relaxed its post-war export posture for shipbuilding and some kit, but loosening rules for frigates (Mogami → Australia) is a far cry from handing over a 5th/6th-gen engine core. If you want proof Japan has opened exports for ships, see the Mogami deal- but that doesn’t equal “XF9 for sale to the highest bidder.”

2) Your $7bn “buy the XF9 and Japan will build something else” math is fantasy accounting. Countries monetise defence IP via controlled co-development, long-term offsets and export controls. You don’t buy a national turbofan core outright and expect the seller to leave with no sovereign strings attached; that would destroy the selling nation’s industrial base. Yes, Japan can and will build future engines for its own needs, but the notion that Tokyo would blow past decades of industrial sovereignty for a one-time lump sum is conspiracy. (Look above to Mogami: export rules change ≠ blanket IP giveaways.)

3) The “Turkey has full F-16 source code since 2011” myth needs to die. Turkey was granted access for specific upgrade packages and MLU-related software to integrate national weapons- that’s basic partial access, not the same as carte-blanche possession of Lockheed’s entire avionics and weapons source tree. Official Congressional/industry reporting and export authority trails show these were controlled, conditional transfers to enable specific modernization work, not “free ownership.” If Ankara truly had full, unrestricted code control, the political scramble over later F-35 expulsions and Block-70 negotiations wouldn’t have been the mess they were.

4) Lavi and the F-2 lessons prove the opposite of what you claim. Israel’s Lavi collapsed under politics, cost and strategic calculation even with U.S. assistance-that’s a case study in how hard developing a jet is, not a proof that tech is freely transferable on commercial terms. The U.S. did not casually hand Israel every crown-jewel; the Lavi was cancelled and Israel pivoted to COTS options (F-16), which shows how political and financial constraints choke indigenous fighter programs even with friendly partners.

5) The F-117 “offer” to Britain is being used as rhetorical glitter- the historical reality is much less sexy. The U.S. kept stealth programs extremely tightly controlled; the UK got selective cooperation and briefings, not free export of operational stealth fleets. Don’t use one poorly cited anecdote to imply a pattern of handing over top-secret platforms as party favors. The UK rejected both the US' offers for a reason: they were more black boxes which trapped them into dependency. Uncle Sam is not that generous.

6) Satellites tracking “every bomber takeoff” and “making stealth obsolete” is lazy reasoning- Commercial and military ISR have massively improved (we have all seen satellite imagery showing bombers and base damage), and that raises the baseline for situational awareness -but detecting a large non-stealthy target is not the same problem as detecting a low-observable, low-IR tactical aircraft operating inside an integrated A2/AD envelope. If satellites alone neutralised stealth, no state would be investing billions in low-observable airframes- yet the U.S., China, Russia and others continue to do exactly that because stealth fundamentally changes tactical and operational calculus in contested airspace. Satellite ISR augments targeting but does not magically remove the value of stealth or low-observable engines. It's easy for a satellite to detect giant aircraft which have extremely high RCS'- they are lit up brighter than Vegas at night. However you seem to ignore the glaring fact that a B-2 or B-21 have RCS' of 0.0001m2 and 0.000001m2 respectively- a whole different ballgame from ~40m2 RCS for large bombers. So, it looks like your under the delusion that you have outsmarted every major defense ministry on the planet- pat yourself on the back.

7) About drones, tanks and MQ-9: they have rewritten the tactical rulebook- Ukraine’s data shows drones accounted for a huge share of strikes on vehicles and equipment, and cheap loitering munitions inflicted massive damage on exposed armor when combined with good ISR and targeting. That said, a successful tactical effect ≠ strategic obsolescence. Armoured survivability is being re-engineered via dispersion, camouflage, layered AD, Active Protection Systems (APS), and revised combined-arms doctrine. In plain English: drones make tanks riskier when misused- they don’t make them irrelevant. Your worship of Turkey and its drones prove your extremely skewed and biased viewpoint.

8) MQ-9 losses to Houthi and other AD systems are proof that drones are not the end all be all for modern combat- they can be taken down. Several U.S. Reapers have been shot down over Yemen and the Red Sea theatre in the last few years, showing that MALE platforms are vulnerable without adequate standoff, escorts, EW or permissive airspace. That’s hard evidence against your “drones are invincible” tirade- you must employ them with combined arms, doctrine, and protection. If you think giving every UCAV cruise missiles is a silver bullet, the Houthi record and recent skirmishes prove otherwise. Turkey's 'cruise-missile drone' included, it is not some great technological breakthrough.

9) Your “Japan doesn’t build bombers” chest-thump misses strategy. Japan has deliberately avoided strategic bomber programs for political/constitutional reasons; that’s a policy choice, not a proof that bombers are obsolete. Countries make tradeoffs- Japan chose naval and regional airpower and now develops advanced fighters and frigates. That’s different from saying strategic bombers, cruise missiles or standoff assets are useless- they remain central to many nations’ deterrence and power-projection toolkits.

10) The Comanche project directly fed tech into the Apache- again, you prove you only care about sensationalism and 'OMG! US FAIL! US BAD!'. Please, grow up. The A-12, while expensive, demonstrated the intricacies of technology development- its no joke. The United States is such a powerhouse today in military technology because of the fact that they have the budget and willpower to push through flailing projects- and the A-12 too gave valuable learning to engineers for future projects- in this industry, failure is not an if- its guaranteed- what matters is how you move on.

Finally- the pattern in your rant is obvious: you latch onto half-truths (Japan sold Mogami frigates, U.S. allowed controlled F-16 software access, drones scored big in Ukraine) and then stretches them into handwavy, unsupported grand claims (XF9 “for sale,” satellites making stealth useless, drones ending tanks). That’s not analysis- it’s spewing political propaganda. If you wants credibility, he needs to stop treating sovereign military IP as a commodity you buy with a single wire transfer, read the actual program statements and export-control realities, and learn the difference between “platform upgrade access” and “full source-code ownership".

 

[智子 伊瀬]

Nice- another tirade based on political messaging and fake news! Time to rip this one apart again!

1) The XF9 is not some ownerless spare part Japan will dump for a one-time cheque. The XF9 is IHI’s cutting-edge demonstrator and a central piece of Japan’s next-gen propulsion roadmap; Tokyo is explicitly tying that work into international GCAP/Tempest-class development paths and commercialization plans, not auctioning the core IP on a whim. The Japanese themselves have said that the XF9 and its derivatives is their contribution to the GCAP engine. Selling a mature, classified turbofan core is not how sovereign industrial policy works; Japan relaxed its post-war export posture for shipbuilding and some kit, but loosening rules for frigates (Mogami → Australia) is a far cry from handing over a 5th/6th-gen engine core. If you want proof Japan has opened exports for ships, see the Mogami deal- but that doesn’t equal “XF9 for sale to the highest bidder.”

2) Your $7bn “buy the XF9 and Japan will build something else” math is fantasy accounting. Countries monetise defence IP via controlled co-development, long-term offsets and export controls. You don’t buy a national turbofan core outright and expect the seller to leave with no sovereign strings attached; that would destroy the selling nation’s industrial base. Yes, Japan can and will build future engines for its own needs, but the notion that Tokyo would blow past decades of industrial sovereignty for a one-time lump sum is conspiracy. (Look above to Mogami: export rules change ≠ blanket IP giveaways.)

3) The “Turkey has full F-16 source code since 2011” myth needs to die. Turkey was granted access for specific upgrade packages and MLU-related software to integrate national weapons- that’s basic partial access, not the same as carte-blanche possession of Lockheed’s entire avionics and weapons source tree. Official Congressional/industry reporting and export authority trails show these were controlled, conditional transfers to enable specific modernization work, not “free ownership.” If Ankara truly had full, unrestricted code control, the political scramble over later F-35 expulsions and Block-70 negotiations wouldn’t have been the mess they were.

4) Lavi and the F-2 lessons prove the opposite of what you claim. Israel’s Lavi collapsed under politics, cost and strategic calculation even with U.S. assistance-that’s a case study in how hard developing a jet is, not a proof that tech is freely transferable on commercial terms. The U.S. did not casually hand Israel every crown-jewel; the Lavi was cancelled and Israel pivoted to COTS options (F-16), which shows how political and financial constraints choke indigenous fighter programs even with friendly partners.

5) The F-117 “offer” to Britain is being used as rhetorical glitter- the historical reality is much less sexy. The U.S. kept stealth programs extremely tightly controlled; the UK got selective cooperation and briefings, not free export of operational stealth fleets. Don’t use one poorly cited anecdote to imply a pattern of handing over top-secret platforms as party favors. The UK rejected both the US' offers for a reason: they were more black boxes which trapped them into dependency. Uncle Sam is not that generous.

6) Satellites tracking “every bomber takeoff” and “making stealth obsolete” is lazy reasoning- Commercial and military ISR have massively improved (we have all seen satellite imagery showing bombers and base damage), and that raises the baseline for situational awareness -but detecting a large non-stealthy target is not the same problem as detecting a low-observable, low-IR tactical aircraft operating inside an integrated A2/AD envelope. If satellites alone neutralised stealth, no state would be investing billions in low-observable airframes- yet the U.S., China, Russia and others continue to do exactly that because stealth fundamentally changes tactical and operational calculus in contested airspace. Satellite ISR augments targeting but does not magically remove the value of stealth or low-observable engines. It's easy for a satellite to detect giant aircraft which have extremely high RCS'- they are lit up brighter than Vegas at night. However you seem to ignore the glaring fact that a B-2 or B-21 have RCS' of 0.0001m2 and 0.000001m2 respectively- a whole different ballgame from ~40m2 RCS for large bombers. So, it looks like your under the delusion that you have outsmarted every major defense ministry on the planet- pat yourself on the back.

7) About drones, tanks and MQ-9: they have rewritten the tactical rulebook- Ukraine’s data shows drones accounted for a huge share of strikes on vehicles and equipment, and cheap loitering munitions inflicted massive damage on exposed armor when combined with good ISR and targeting. That said, a successful tactical effect ≠ strategic obsolescence. Armoured survivability is being re-engineered via dispersion, camouflage, layered AD, Active Protection Systems (APS), and revised combined-arms doctrine. In plain English: drones make tanks riskier when misused- they don’t make them irrelevant. Your worship of Turkey and its drones prove your extremely skewed and biased viewpoint.

8) MQ-9 losses to Houthi and other AD systems are proof that drones are not the end all be all for modern combat- they can be taken down. Several U.S. Reapers have been shot down over Yemen and the Red Sea theatre in the last few years, showing that MALE platforms are vulnerable without adequate standoff, escorts, EW or permissive airspace. That’s hard evidence against your “drones are invincible” tirade- you must employ them with combined arms, doctrine, and protection. If you think giving every UCAV cruise missiles is a silver bullet, the Houthi record and recent skirmishes prove otherwise. Turkey's 'cruise-missile drone' included, it is not some great technological breakthrough.

9) Your “Japan doesn’t build bombers” chest-thump misses strategy. Japan has deliberately avoided strategic bomber programs for political/constitutional reasons; that’s a policy choice, not a proof that bombers are obsolete. Countries make tradeoffs- Japan chose naval and regional airpower and now develops advanced fighters and frigates. That’s different from saying strategic bombers, cruise missiles or standoff assets are useless- they remain central to many nations’ deterrence and power-projection toolkits.

10) The Comanche project directly fed tech into the Apache- again, you prove you only care about sensationalism and 'OMG! US FAIL! US BAD!'. Please, grow up. The A-12, while expensive, demonstrated the intricacies of technology development- its no joke. The United States is such a powerhouse today in military technology because of the fact that they have the budget and willpower to push through flailing projects- and the A-12 too gave valuable learning to engineers for future projects- in this industry, failure is not an if- its guaranteed- what matters is how you move on.

Finally- the pattern in your rant is obvious: you latch onto half-truths (Japan sold Mogami frigates, U.S. allowed controlled F-16 software access, drones scored big in Ukraine) and then stretches them into handwavy, unsupported grand claims (XF9 “for sale,” satellites making stealth useless, drones ending tanks). That’s not analysis- it’s spewing political propaganda. If you wants credibility, he needs to stop treating sovereign military IP as a commodity you buy with a single wire transfer, read the actual program statements and export-control realities, and learn the difference between “platform upgrade access” and “full source-code ownership".

1. The XF9 in its original form is not used anywhere, therefore it is possible to agree on the sale to India. Reppu will not use the current XF9, as it will have a more advanced engine, including ACE technology.
2. As I said, Japan and India have no contradictions, India does not leak technology to China, Japan also needs money to develop a new engine and other parts of the Japanese version of GCAP. A complete sale, a joint project or licensing are just ways to make money. Tokyo lifts restrictions, since without exports, weapons become very expensive and China is increasing its influence in the region, which forces it to coordinate with allies and take its share of the export market in order to develop further.
3. Ankara owns the Block 30 code, so they are the ones undergoing modernization according to the Özgür standard with the replacement of the radar, other avionics and electronics with Turkish ones, I am not even talking about weapons.
4. Lavi collapsed because the American taxpayer did not want to pay for the development of a Jewish aircraft. Israel itself was unable to pay for this project, Japan, even after the bubble burst and the collapse of the USSR, could afford to develop the F-2. I'm surprised at how Zionists lobbied for the transfer of American technology at the expense of American taxpayers. There is no hint of pragmatism here, what an irrational desire.
5. Britain is already heavily dependent on the United States, Uncle Sam is behind the British nuclear program, behind the American bombs at the Lakenheath air base, and so on.
6. The examples with the A-12, Comanche and YAL-1 were higher, at the moment the B2 was bombing either the Afghans, who have no air defense, or Iran, where the Israeli Air Force has already destroyed the air defense. Naturally, such a backward country as Iran has neither a developed satellite group, nor developed detection systems. We need to think decades ahead, CAS is already a thing of the past, Bombers will be next. In 2050-2060 drones will replace pilots.
7. Most of the strikes in the war are carried out by kamikaze drones, small and medium-sized drones are used for reconnaissance, and both sides of the conflict admit this. I see that UAVs have become a "punishing hand", as for the Turks, their Akinci will survive on the battlefield more likely than the MQ-9. The MQ-9 is a relic of the "war on terror" until it learns to carry cruise missiles. In the field of FPV drones, the US is lagging behind, despite the fact that they are not fighting, but are closely monitoring the war. Since 2024, the Houthis have shot down more than 10 MQ-9s, if they were carrying cruise missiles, none would have been shot down. The Houthis have not shot down a single Israeli Air Force plane that fired cruise missiles without entering the Houthi air defense zone.
8. Japan doesn't need bombers at all, since conventional aviation was enough against the USSR, China is also not far away, a war with Russia is unlikely at all, and Russia is far from the USSR in strength. Britain and France also refused them, although they could have jointly developed a replacement for the Mirage IV and V-bombers. Avionics can be developed without developing a new helicopter, the A-12 buried McDonell Douglas and billions of taxpayer dollars. The YF-22 and YF-23 were at least useful for researching advanced technologies and air superiority.

 

[Snowstrike]

First off, your opening about the XF9 is just naïve. The XF9 is not some abandoned relic up for a garage sale- Japan has themselves said that it’s the foundation of their contribution to the next-gen GCAP engine. They are not going to casually hand over a crown-jewel core design that underpins their future fighter. Even if India and Japan are cooperating more closely, the idea of “complete sale” or “licensing” of something as sensitive as the XF9’s hot section or ACE integration is fantasy. At best, you’d get a highly watered-down derivative, not the full IP. Japan has been cautious with even minor defense exports; suddenly imagining they’ll hand over a whole cutting-edge engine because “they need money” is laughable.

Second, your “Japan and India have no contradictions” line is feel-good fluff. Strategic alignment doesn’t magically override decades of Tokyo’s strict export controls and tech-guarding paranoia. You act like because China exists, Japan will throw open the vault. Reality check: Tokyo’s incremental loosening of restrictions has been painfully slow, and even then it’s mostly non-sensitive tech or co-development with trusted partners. And no, needing export revenue doesn’t mean they’ll hand over their most classified engine data like a clearance sale at Walmart.

Third, your point about Ankara and the F-16 Block 30 Özgür project is irrelevant window dressing. Yes, Turkey has those codes, because they got them decades ago under Cold War terms. That has nothing to do with cutting-edge tech transfer today, and turkey does not receive any more source codes. You’re dragging in unrelated trivia to look informed, but it’s a cheap smokescreen.

Fourth, your rant on the Lavi versus Japan’s F-2 is just embarrassing. Israel didn’t “collapse” because the U.S. taxpayer didn’t want to fund it- the program was killed because it was duplicative, strategically unnecessary once the U.S. was supplying F-16s, and yes, politically sensitive. Israel didn’t have Japan’s industrial depth at the time, but pretending the F-2 was some glorious triumph while the Lavi was an irrational disaster shows you don’t understand economics, politics, or defense industrial bases. And your “Zionists lobbied” nonsense? That’s just desperate rhetoric to mask the fact you can’t argue with hard program histories.

Fifth, your “Britain is a U.S. vassal” point is the same tired talking point people drag out when they run out of substance. Yes, the UK works closely with the U.S. on nuclear matters- but that doesn’t erase the fact that Rolls-Royce develops its own cores, turbines, and engines independently. The U.S. doesn’t control RR’s IP or dictate their engine programs. Reducing everything to “Uncle Sam owns the Brits” is childish geopolitics, not analysis.

Sixth, your bomber and stealth commentary shows you don’t understand airpower. The B-2 didn’t “only bomb Afghans and Iranians”- it demonstrated the ability to penetrate integrated air defense systems decades ahead of anyone else. Iran being “backward” doesn’t negate the fact the B-2 represents survivability against high-end threats. CAS is not “a thing of the past” either- it’s evolved into multi-role precision strike. Saying “bombers will be next” is just you pretending drones can replace every combat role, when reality shows drones complement, not replace, manned assets in peer warfare.

Seventh, your drone obsession is misplaced. Yes, kamikaze drones have had a huge effect in Ukraine, but calling the MQ-9 “a relic” is ignorant. The MQ-9 is not meant to be a frontline, survivable strike drone; it’s ISR and counterterrorism. Comparing it to FPV drones is like comparing a long-range bomber to a quadcopter. And your Houthis example? The MQ-9s are flying exposed ISR missions at medium altitude, not firing cruise missiles from standoff. Suggesting strapping cruise missiles onto MQ-9s as some miracle fix is laughable- that’s not how survivability works. Meanwhile, Turkey’s Akinci has yet to be tested in a peer air defense environment, so your “it will survive” line is baseless wishful thinking.

Eighth, your “Japan doesn’t need bombers” argument shows zero understanding of force structure. The lack of a bomber doesn’t mean Japan “never needed them”- it means their defense doctrine and geography made fighters and standoff strike a more efficient investment. Britain and France didn’t “refuse” bombers either- they transitioned to nuclear deterrence via subs and tactical aircraft. Your attempt to turn that into some deep strategic insight is just you backfilling nonsense. And dragging the A-12, YAL-1, and YF-22/23 into this is incoherent- one was a mismanaged stealth program, one was a directed-energy experiment, and two were technology demonstrators that actually fed directly into U.S. air superiority. Equating them all as “failures” is you signaling you don’t understand what R&D is for.

In short, your whole post is a mash of half-truths, lazy geopolitics, and out-of-context trivia meant to sound authoritative. Instead, it just reads like someone parroting headlines without the depth to connect them properly. If you want to talk tech transfer, drones, or bomber doctrine, bring facts and context- not this patchwork of shallow takes and desperate political messaging.