Complexity has its drawbacks, but also its merits. A retractable refuelling probe isn’t permanently exposed to the external environment which may have implications on maintenance as well! It also increases drag and RCS, though the impact might be rather small. Every design solution has its pros/cons.

I would say that exposition to external environment is pinuts compare to the stress of multiple air refuelings.
AFAIK, external fixed probe are usually much stronger than retractable one.
And if an external probe is dammaged,.. well, you replace the probe, which again is easier than replacing a moving one.

As far as RCS increase is concerned, well, unless you play in the F-22 league, it’s more or less irrelevant.

drag ? again, unless you shape your probe like an airbrake it won’t add that much drag (retractable probes are often quite draggy but that ‘s not the case for a mirage/Rafale probe which is designed to minimize drag as much as possible)
It might be an issue to reach very high speeds though(>mach2.5) ?

[joke]The only way for a Rafale to reach the same drag coef as a super bug is to get the gear down and open the canopy… in flight[joke]

My suggestion was to switch to an AESA from the beginning with the combined funds of the partner nations, otherwise a PESA solution may have been a good compromise. The radar is still the most important sensor on an aircraft due to its performance, versatility and overall accuracy. Always relying on external sources isn’t possible in every single scenario and when we add the benefits of greater resolution for SAR mapping for example, greater detection/tracking performance in the “sensor/shooter” model etc. I see benefits for a more powerful radar. It’s interesting that its only the Rafale supporters who don’t see the increased performance as an advantage and not as a drawback.

Well, I agree that more radar power is an advantage for AESA radar if you use it to perform several tasks (scaning and jamming for example) or if your missiles need this power to be used at their full potential

However, more power just to increase radar range is not always relevant.

radar detection and tracking of vlo aircrafts for exemple is only (imho) relevant if you manage to do it beyond the range of your IRST.
I mean, what would be the benefit of detecting an F-22 with your radar at 30 km rather than 20km if you can detect it at >50km with your IRST ? none. Worst, with your radar at full power you will be far easier to detect yourself.

Then let’s imagine your radar is so much powerfull that you can even detect and engage our F-22 (or any other futur VLO a/c) at a relevant range, like 100 km for instance. What is the garanty that your missile’s radar (which is small and weak) will manage to find this VLO target ?

Note that I don’t pretent that I can kill a raptor at 50 km with an IRST + mica IR anyday of the week, but still I’m convinced that I have a better chance (even if it’s thin) than trying to do it with a more powerfull radar + amraam

As to you Kovy, what Oman fiasco, exactly? The Omani Typhoon procurement continues according to the expected timescale. No-one who knows Oman was remotely surprised that they procured a second F-16 squadron.

And the UAE Rafale procurement is not dead either. So…

Typhoon has good sensor fusion and it’s getting better. Captor-E will allow cooperative targeting, and will be in service within 24-36 months of the Rafale’s AESA, which is inferior. Rafale can’t make its nose bigger, and won’t get a repositioner.

24-36 months… I wouldn’t trust a schedule with a 30% uncertainty.
We will compare the 2 systems when the Typhoon will actually get its aesa+repositioner.
And again BVR performance are not just related to the size of the radar antenna.

The Typhoon’s ‘late’ integration of air-to-ground capabilities has still allowed it to clock up nearly 100 more export orders than Rafale….. And the required integrations are on track now.

So what ? That does not make the A2G weapon integration less late, does it?

As to range. Typhoon’s operations were not constrained over Libya any more than Tornado’s or Rafale’s.

and again Libya is not representative of sysmetric conflict not involving NATO/US extensive tanker fleet. With a standard tanker support and low altitude flights with heavy loads the Typhoon would show its range shortcoming.

And there was more than one Rafale diversion, Kovy.

Share your sources. (not that it will change anything to the fact that the Rafale flew twice as much, anyway)

It does not mean much. as Thales have long standing relationship with French government and Airbus has French executives so even if some other firms are good they will not chose to develop long term competitor.
and most of stuff of Thales is now outside France. it is more acq and co development strategy than self development. It cannot license something on which it does not have 100% rights.
I would rate Russia and Israeli higher in software side.

Many european companies outsource a part of their software development in former soviet coiuntries because the manpower is cheap, not because it is better.
Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t… depending mostly on how good the management is.

Is it confirmed that he’s been misquoted? (Shout out to French members)

A lot of sources seem to reporting the same. Reuters, Associated Press and at least one AFP article.

The magic of fast food journalism…. 😡

AFP did a terrible job reporting the interview of Longuet. They interpreted what the Defense Minister said so as to get a sensational headline and this misleading headline was copied/pasted by every one, even in some specialized international media (which is a shame)

bogus Interpretation of AFP : Longuet Says Rafale Production Will Stop If No Export Orders
What the Minister actually said during the interview: “If I remember correctly, the Rafale production will run until 2018 at least on French need only”
Ministry note the next day to clarify everything : “The Rafale production will run beyond 2020 on French need only”. Period.

And those already in service that meant that it attacked a bigger proportion of dynamic targets in Libya than Rafale did?

Which is a poor statistic trick to hide the fact that the typhoon couldn’t be tasked for other missions such as stand off strikes, SEAD, recce… you know, tasks that the Rafale were doing on a daily basis in Libya.

FIrst, Congrats to Saab 😀

then, I remember how desapointed I was when Switzerland decided to buy the F/A-18 instead of the Mirage 2000. Then i thought, ok, it’s fair, they took the best aircraft.
15 years later, the Rafale is ranked first but they choose the cheapest jet. Damned ! that’s unfair :p:o

It is, haven’t you heard? Trials with Typhoon + Meteor are well under way.

Irony.
intended to underline the fact that the meteor is developed not only to get a a better missile than the amraam, but also because it will ensure to the european partners a total control on their BVR weapon (EECM, datalink, upgrades)

BVR missiles are strategic assets because they are the key to air superiority without which your aviation is useless.
Relying on an external provider for such missiles will prevent any rapid update to counter ennemy ECM improvements.