Thanks for your reply.
Perhaps it's a translation/acception issue, what you call MMI (I think) is what I call UI. For me, MMI is larger than UI. MMI can be assessed for a whole aircraft, UI will be about IT systems (navigation, attack, communications) aboard that aircraft (displays, menus, inputs... and so on).
But, OK, for the sake of the argument, let's talk about what you call MMI and what I call UI.
That said, I disagree when you said:
- If you have to train harder/longer, but are more efficient (or can do more different things) in the end, then the MMI is superior.
- If you have to train harder/longer, and are as efficient in the end, then the MMI is inferior (but assuming you're trained, that won't be an issue when operationnal).
- If you have to train harder/longer, and are less efficient in the end, then the MMI is clearly inferior.
MilDave has posted a nice comment on that just above (post #416), I won't repeat it, just say I agree with it.
I'll be brief: your arguments didn't convince me that Typhoon's superiority in that domain is a sure fact. I accept the possibility, I accept that you trully believe it (and that you may have good reasons/sources to do so) but in the end I'm not sure/convinced, so I can't agree with the the description of this superiority as a fact.
And after that post, I think I'll leave the MMI/UI topic here, with the fact that we do not agree, because as you said:
PS: My apologies to all posters, for participating in a clear drift of the thread far from its original topic. Will try to behave better, next time