Typhoon was the only competitor with major technical problems. Gripen had a flat tyre, but this was caused by the unusal high langding weight.
Considering EADS had by far the biggest technical staff, I would think this pretty much rules the EF out.
I mean it has been stressed several times that those 22 airframes are considered as unsufficient.
Therefore they want the aircraft with the best availability and lowest maintenance costs. EADS demonstrated the exact opposite.
If we add in available training grounds, commitment to the programme from it’s producers (or their governments) then it’s only about Rafale and Saab.
I guess it boils down to Armasuisses’ perception of Gripens future. Sweden just reduced it’s airforce considerably, and the rest of the userbase aren’t exactly economic powerhouses. On the positive side: Saab has a good reputation for honoring their offset obligations.
Rafale has a good programme management, can offer better performance and the best endurance. This is often overlooked by many people.
The Swiss airforce has always two Jets up in the air. Longer loiter time reduces numbers of sorties, therefore reduces noise.

I would go for Rafale.

and it mentions the GAF EF’s were very pleased with mock AtA combat against Rafales. Does that stand as evidence now?

As long as we don’t know the rules of engagement it means nothing. By the way, we had similar stuff in French press concerning French Rafales vs. Italian Typhoons.

The article is incorrect at some points. There is government support for Typhoons AESA. Prototype tests conducted on DA 5 (?) were financed by the German MoD.

As far as the swiss evaluation is concerned, I would now give the typhoon an edge for a few reasons (my two cents) :

-The swiss want mainly an aircraft for sky policing (point defense), and the typhoon is taylored for that role since it was concieved to intercept warsaw pact fighters…What an irony after the collapse of the soviet union for an aircraft which has a strong cold war design origin and seemed a bit outdated in its concept!
This area represents 50% of the performance evaluation. I don’t doubt that the typhoon should have exeled in that role like the supersonic interception of the F18.

-It has an HMS which is a stong point for these kind of missions.

-In terms of cost, although the rafale is cheaper the swiss should include the costs of buying micas…The typhoon can already take AMRAM and (sidewinders) ?

-Last but not least, 3 out of the 4 swiss neighbours operate the typhoon.

On the other hand, for this mission the rafale can boast to have a better radar and EW (AESA) as well as a better combat endurance, but I doubt it will make up for the the better kinetics of the typhoon.

Since long range AtG missions are not the priority for the Swiss Air force for obvious reasons, rafale main competitive advantage vanishes…Besides I don’t see the swiss buying loads of AASM and SCALP cruise missles…If you look at the typical F18 and F5 configuration, they only bring a drop tank or two with one or two AA missiles…

And I don’t think the gripen will win hear since performance (60% of the evaluation) is more important than costs…

I don’t think you are right on this one. As much as A2A maybe be important, that is what the F-18 is for.
In my opinion, there are 2 way more important things in the swiss evaluation.
1) purchasing costs and costs of ownership
2) availability of extra territorial training grounds

In both areas the Rafale is probably better compared to Typhoon. The armasuisse needs those foreign training grounds. And France has them next door.
Italian or German training ranges are in my opinion a bit too far away.

Point is, Norway decided to go for the more capable aircraft, made by a trusted ally. So far no problem.
They could have told this Saab and Eurofighter two years ago. Instead they decided to make up numbers, and changed the requirenments till it fitted to the JSF.
Nearly tripling the estimated lifecycle costs for a modestly modified aircraft (compared to Saabs estimates), while at the same time taking LM’s estimates for a completely untested aircraft for granted, is very dishonest in my opinion.

European aviation industry has failed… Being better than SU-35 and F15/16/18 does not cut it in the future.

You can’t blaim the industry. European Governments decided it would be sufficient to be a junior partner in an US programme.
And considering that most European airforces are shrinking to comedy sizes, I fail to see any justification for an European 5th generation jet.

Your number for German Typhoons seems to be wrong. Since you assumed for the UK, Italy and Spain the complete production run, you should do the same with the German number. 180 instead of 169.

Well, BAe made good profits by having a 49% stake in many companies and programmes.
This way, they managed to become the largest defence contractor in Europe.
Why should they change that strategy ?

I think there is nothing wrong with Russian parts in Chinese aircraft. Especially the engines are at least similar to those used in Su-27 and MiG-29.
Could save some investments into new ground equipment and support infrastructure.