First there is a difference between can and do.

Then the UK hasn’t built a complete fighter on their own in a long time. That doesn’t mean they can’t. Given what they finally spent on the Typhoon they certainly could have gone alone.
BAE has so many ties in the US that many of their products and technologies are subject to US control.
Finally the UK lack the political leadership to keep and promote a fully independant military fighter aircraft industry (again not that they can’t).

If the political angle is true, then maybe the UAE thought they would get a very interesting bargain for buying Rafale now at a highly discounted price.
But since France is proposing a partnership, they have likely included ToT cost and such in the price.

If France government isn’t willing or capable to make the difference, I can understand why the Rafale’s consortium doesn’t want to lose money.
While Sarkozy is desperate to credit himself with a win, Dassault and cie might be willing to wait for the UAE to have a real need and be ready to put real money in the deal.

Honestly I doubt Eurofighter can really do better; I don’t see them making a cheap deal like the US do with their actual economy. So I guess it’s wait and see…

How does it compare to the Exocet ?

I find it odd in their presentation of the ‘Sea Typhoon’ for the IN they were offering the RBS-15.

Exocet (French): latest standard is AM39 Block 2 with a range of 70 kilometres. It’s a medium antiship missible design to take out light to medium ships (frigates, corvettes, and destroyers).

RBS-15 (Swedish): lastest standard is RBS-15 Mk. II with a 70 km range. It’s also a medium antiship missile derivated from a french missile.

The MARTE MK2 (Italian) is a light antiship missile with a range of 30 km comparable to the franco-british joint venture for a new light antiship missile.
The MARTE-ER is a updated version capable of a range of about 100 km. I have no idea if they upgraded the warhead in order to attack larger target.

UCAV in complex battle senarii maybe for sometimes, but to takeoff, drop a bomb and comeback that’s not more complicated than what a predator drone is doing, or a cruise missile (exept for the comeback part…). The target could be loaded, and then the UCAV could go on its own without the need for the operator to worry about it until its return.

USA, China and Russia are giants who are power struggling in order to have political and financial dominance.
They are locked in what is called an arm race, where you need to dissuade or impress your adversaries by showing them that your military is quantitatively and/or qualitatively better.

Their concerns are about been able to penetrate each other defence in order to delay the use of nuclear weaponry or assure their safe delivery.
In this context they are bound to try and develop highly expensive weaponry and match each other in a psychological dance of who has the bigger gun.
That is why the US shot down one of their satellite one year after the Chinese, who themselves did so decade after the first attempt by the US.
The F35 is marketed as an all-around stealth aircraft capable of defeating enemy integrated air defence systems and have a guaranteed first look first kill on any opponent.

Of course the truth is nothing is unbeatable.
The only deterrence that a small nations like UK, France, Germany, Italy etc. can offer is either been friend with a big brother, or rely on nuclear deterrence.

In addition, all-around physical stealth effectiveness is debatable, and new sensors like hyper-spectral sensors will more than likely be able to detect them.

So if you must choose what’s important if you have limited budget that would be to invest in the most important thing in an aircraft which is its electronics.

Europeans have demonstrated in India that their platforms are highly relevant and capable. British, Italian and French defence suits are integrated in many combat aircrafts around the world.
They have learn that the difference between the success of the F 15 and the semi success of the F 14 wasn’t in the platform since the F 14 was arguably a better platform, but in the electronics.

A Typhoon, Rafale or Gripen with the proper supports will beat an F 35 without support any days, and have the advantage of actually be affordable (well at least in theory for some).

An F 35 doesn’t have a cooled engine, so while its IR signature will be reduced, it will still be detectable. And stealth UCAV (mostly bomber) been developed by the European will be much more effective because ultimately disposable.

On a long range mission, an F 35 would still have to be refuelled, and as far as I know there are no stealthy refuelling planes.
So in conclusion, there are many ways of achieving air dominance, and the F 35 isn’t the only way.

What’s the point of trying to paint a different picture? No buyer with billions to invest will lack the resources to check whether the claims being made are true. When they are told the claims are false it just damages the credibility of the company making the stupid assertions.

Had Eurofighter emphasised the qualities of Typhoon where it had an advantage over Rafale (towed decoy etc) and argued that their absence in Rafale was a great drawback, that might have been fine. Instead they chose to make statements about Rafale that the facts probably or definitely do not support. Had it been Typhoon that had a wide range of A2G systems integrated (and Rafale very few), I think they probably could argue that there were things Rafale could not do. Since Typhoon has very limited A2G capability, Eurofighter should not be surprised if this pointless piece of Rafale bashing backfires. Dassault could respond (if they chose) pointing out the very real A2G limitations of Typhoon in Libya which meant that it was impossible for Typhoon to undertake the full spectrum of missions.

Maybe towed decoy etc aren’t such an advantage after all…

wait, they deserve a little something for the good work 😀

Nice:)