You are quite right. However...
You get tired from respecting the majority of "opinions", an example will be that a member once proposed in his "expert view" to fit "WS-15" or "WS-10" to JF-17 because RD-33 was simply less powerful -_-
And please do not misunderstand "Sarcasm" with Condescension.
View attachment 295690
My earlier comment has stung you indeed but you did not lose your courtesy so I will try to follow you on this one. But guide me on how far can one "respect the views"?
1= EJ-200 has 40%(8 compare to 13) less compressor stages and with no removable parts, total number of modules is 15 and total number of parts is 1800 only which is almost half comparing to the Russian engine, so here is the poles apart difference in the area of reliability and ease of maintenance.
2= Now coming to that other joke of EJ-200 having only 400lbf of extra thrust. Cuz where I see it the difference is of 2,300 lbf between the "dry thrusts" which matter by all means first and the most(13,500 & 11,200). And the increase in "wet thrust" applied to RD-93 on the cost of service life can also be applied to EJ-200 on much greater level of 1,600 lbf of extra "dry thrust" on the cost of comparatively very low sacrifice of service life.
3= EJ-200 is smaller(7 & 5 inches inches in length and width), lighter(by 70kg), efficient(5.1% in dry & 8.1% in wet), and durable(with almost triple the service life), "doesn't smoke cigars", has the tremendous advantage of enjoying a FADEC system, comes with a 30% growth potential.
There are even more tiring details to this topic and having all of it in my mind simply leaves me intolerant to such statements coming with an even more ironical point where they state the ones with legitimate knowledge to be "armchair bandits".