So what your basically saying is that Unless your fighting in Hilly European terrain the Rafale is at a disadvantage? Yes I see because most of the worlds hot spots have mountainous European terrain to hide behind. No one would ever think of having a war in the desert! Now excuse me while I pick apart your flight global article.

Royal Air Force

The first British prototype made its maiden flight on 30 October, 1974. On 11 July, 1985, the RAF reconnaissance version (GR1A) made its maiden flight. RAF Tornado GR1s and GR1As were used during the Gulf War, Operation Desert Fox and the Kosovo War.

The Tornado’s combat debut came in 1991 in the Gulf War. Nearly 60 GR1s were deployed by the United Kingdom to air bases at Muharraq (Bahrain), Tabuk and Dhahran in Saudi Arabia.[4] In the early stages of Operation Granby RAF Tornado GR.1s were used to target Iraqi military airfields using 1,000 lb (450 kg) unguided bombs in loft-bombing attacks and the JP233 runway denial weapon. Six RAF Tornados were lost, as was one Italian Tornado. Of the RAF aircraft, four were lost while delivering unguided bombs, one was lost after delivering JP233, and one was lost trying to deliver laser-guided bombs.[5]

For the Gulf War (Operation Granby), the ALARM missile and TIALD pod were rushed into service for RAF IDSs. Seven RAF aircraft were lost during the conflict. Three were shot down in combat, three crashed on operations and one was lost in a non-combat incident.[6] Laser guided bombing was introduced at Muharraq on 2 February using Blackburn Buccaneers as airborne designators. Over 1500 bombing sorties and 100 JP233 sorties were flown by RAF Tornados during the Gulf War.[7]

On 17 January 1991, a Tornado was shot down by an Iraqi SA-16 missile after a failed bombing run.[8] On 19 January, a second RAF Tornado was shot by a short range SAM or MANPADS during a raid on Tallil Air Base. On 14 February a third RAF Tornado was downed by radar guided SAMs, either SA-2 or SA-3. [6][9] It has been claimed that a Tornado (ZA467) crewed by Gary Lennox and Adrian Weeks was shot down on 19 January by an Iraqi MiG-29 piloted by Jameel Sayhood with a R-60MK missile,[10] however this aircraft is recorded as having crashed on 22 January on a mission to Ar Rutbah.[6][11]

Following the end of the initial phase of the war, the GR.1s were switched to medium level strike missions. In an emergency deployment, the UK sent out a detachment of Blackburn Buccaneer aircraft equipped with the Pave Spike laser designator, allowing the GR.1s to drop precision guided weapons. A further crash programme was initiated which saw some GR.1s fitted with the TIALD system. In the aftermath of the war, British forces remained in the Gulf, with GR1s being based at Ali Al Salem airbase in Kuwait for operations over the southern no fly zone. GR.1s based there took part in Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

Low level is bad.

This is getting silly, we have already established that the F-35 will fire SDB and JDAM at Mach 1.5+ Increasing the range by a wide margin. Why would you want to be 2k feet off the ground and get hit by small arms fire when I can hit more targets than you can from 70+ miles away? Again here the Rafale comes up short! Can it hit 8 different targets from 70+ miles away? Can it even drop 2k or 1k class at supersonic speed? You will cry out ” we can use the scalp/storm shadow” but the F-35 can use both weapons. It can carry a 2 scalp 8 SDB load or a 2 scalp + 2 JDAM load. launch the scalps, then proceed to its target at top speed for SDB release.

is 2012 now? LOL it didn’t come out of the assembly line with an AESA you know what I’m talking about.

Like I said before regarding the Rafale: Poor acceleration, poor time to climd for a twin engine aircraft, out dated weapons,
less turning ability than a F-35, No stealth with a HUGE blow torch of a butt lighting up the night sky. Cant even Do over 30+ degrees AOA. No Aesa with a Hodgepodge of unintergrated systems.
Convoluted user interface that needs 100 hours just to figure out.
Ohh and did I mention it has a big butt?
😀
A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4he79krseU

Real good info on the squall

Flight printed the cover line ‘Rafale Rules!’ on it’s front cover – together with the taster “Why we think favourite for UAE fighter contest is most complete combat aircraft we have flown.”
Flight’s test pilot (Pete Collins, a retired RAF Wing Commander, former RAF test pilot and Red Arrow) concluded that: “If I had to go into combat, on any mission, against anyone, I would, without question, choose the Rafale.”
From such a pilot, this ringing endorsement seemed, on the face of it, to be unarguable.
But RAF Typhoon pilots in the UAE reacted with puzzled amusement and barely disguised scorn.
“If he thought that, he can’t have flown Typhoon” one told me, bluntly, while another (who had actually flown Rafale) explained that “the Rafale is underpowered by comparison with Typhoon, and needs reheat where we would use dry. We can get through the Mach and supercruise in dry power at typical operating altitudes, and you simply can’t do that in Rafale.”
Pilots who had experienced Rafale’s much vaunted MMI were less than fulsome, concluding that it was “probably great if you’re a Mirage 2000 pilot, but the test will be how a rookie adapts to it.” Even the Armée de l’Air acknowledge that it takes more than 100 flying hours to get used to the collimated cockpit display, they told Combat Aircraft.
And looking into the Flight flight test more carefully, it became clear that the glowing praise was based on flimsy foundations, as an RAF test flying insider (who has flown Typhoon, all of the US Teen Series fighters and the MiG-29) explained to us.
The Flight pilot

“Though Flight’s test pilot is a distinguished former RAF fighter and test pilot, he has little recent, relevant experience that would provide him with any real basis for comparison with the Rafale.
“Collins’ operational RAF flying was in the old ‘steam driven’ Harrier GR.Mk 3, and he also flew in the Falklands in the Sea Harrier FRS.Mk 1. As a Squadron Leader he flew with the Red Arrows but left the team after an aircraft accident.
“He trained as a Test Pilot in 1989, but then served at RAE (later DRA) Bedford on pure Aerospace Research flying – including flying the VAAC Harrier, which was used to develop an advanced FCS for the F-35. He did not serve at Boscombe Down and thus gained no experience of clearance/assessment/’operational fitness for purpose’ testing.
“Collins left the RAF and military test flying world in 1993 and joined Fokker where he flew F60 & F70 airliners, moving to Dornier at Ober Pfaffenhofen for two years after Fokker went bust. He flew the Do 328 turboprop and 328 Jet at Dornier. He subsequently joined KLM. He joined Raytheon as the UK TP/project pilot on the ASTOR Sentinel, and is still with Raytheon, based at Broughton in North Wales.
“Collins writes for Flight as a freelance ‘guest Test Pilot’ – mostly civil business jets and trainers, but he has flown and ‘reviewed’ four military trainers, the Aermacchi M311 and M346, the KAI T-50 and the Pilatus PC-21.
“As far as I know, the Rafale is the first Combat jet he has flown since the Harrier. He has not written any other articles on such aircraft. He has not flown much in the way of other advanced jets even when he was in the RAF. His comparisons with the Mirage 2000 seem to be quite dated – I suspect that he flew the Mirage 2000 as part of his ETPS course.”
The article itself
“Though a magazine article, it follows a well known and internationally accepted formula for a single flight evaluation. It is important to note what is an actual part of the evaluation and what is ‘background’
“The article begins with a basic history of the aircraft’s development and in-service history. (Note though, the two-year software upgrade cycle!)
“The article moves on to a detailed aircraft description (headed Superb Performance & Cockpit Image). But while he broadly follows the template, he often strays from the normal specific Test Pilot descriptions and uses journalistic descriptions and superlatives which are not proven.
“He makes much of the fact that he flew front seat with 90 minutes cockpit familiarization – as if this was an unusual attribute that somehow demonstrates the greatness of the Rafale.
“This is not the case – Test Pilot training is to do exactly that for many aircraft. RAF test pilots routinely fly fighter types like this on one or two sortie evaluations, including the Su-27 Flanker, F-14, F15, F-16 and F/A-18.
“The article then moves on to the Test Flight itself, beginning with Pre-mission planning. Overall this was a very simple sortie profile, and his comments are hardly incisive.
“350 kt, in full afterburner at 35 degrees nose up is not that impressive – at that angle Typhoon will go Supersonic! Note that he was initially only allowed to fly A/S FCS laws! The quoted turn performance (mild buffet at 4.5 g and dry power and a sustained 5g at 350 kts needing 10 deg nose down pitch) is less than startling -our test pilots could do as well in an F-15 19 years ago when they assessed it at the end of the ETPS course. The acceleration (taking approximately 10 seconds to go from 200-500 knots) is good but so it should be for a twin engine fighter at that weight and altitude.
“Roll rates were clearly assessed at 1 g – a better evaluation would have been at elevated g or AoA as a combat capability – noticeably missing in his test.
“At 25,000 ft he went supersonic in a shallow dive – he does not say what power he used – if it was using afterburner, this is not great SEP (specific excess power). He made no comments on radar handling or as to what range the TV was used at. He treated pitch sensitivity as an indication of how agile the aircraft is – and this is bad Test Pilot analysis. The assessment of the AAR laws was cursory. His comments about the tail chase were similarly lacking – he could be comparing this to a Hawk and not another advanced aircraft.
“Two approaches in Auto-throttle mode say little about the aircraft, and Collins made no mention at all of flight path stability and the ability to rapidly correct a poor line up from decision height – both essential TP tests for approaches.
“Achieving 1 hour and 25 minutes with 5.3 tonnes of fuel (needing a centre line tank) and landing with 500 kg after the profile described says to me that the aircraft is not that different from the competition when it comes to range/endurance/fuel consumption.
“He is right in saying that he ‘only scratched the surface of the sensor and weapon capabilities’. That explains his claim to be ‘fully at home in the aircraft, retaining full situational awareness.’
“The evaluation was rather cursory and the concluding superlatives are more journalistic than real conclusions and recommendations. If he would risk his life in any combat situation based on the evidence of what he actually saw…… words fail me!”

http://www.combataircraft.net/reports/rafale.php

ROFL, its good to see someone on this board with a sense of humor.