Indeed, Europe is having quite a luxury problem with being able to choose between the Rafale and the Typhoon.

As for foreign sales, what’s the latest on the Netherlands? Have there been any other evaluations besides the early, economic one? Did they already sign a firm F-35 deal? What’s the situation there?

You don’t have to be generally stupid or inept to make a few stupid decisions along the way or start out clumsily. What matters most in my opinion is the result, and unless you want to claim the Typhoon turned out the way it did by mere luck, it is a seemingly competitive piece of kit not indicative of general stupidity.

Actually , it has twice the external fuel capcity which considerably improve its range and has an engine that consumes less , Rafale can make equal distances with less energy .

Actually they both have nearly the same specific fuel consumption and nearly identical drag (M2@180kN vs. M1.8@150kN). If they were both tasked to go somewhere at the same speed, they would both use a similar amount of fuel.
Then of course the additional wet hardpoints on the Rafale pay off, but does that mean the same as the Typhoon being shortlegged to the point of being unusable, the way you described it? It’s fine to rationally defend something that has been unduly attacked (or mocked :p), but should you in turn do the same then and slag another plane without justifiable claims?

Another thing I wonder: How much do the drop tanks themselves, empty and holding no fuel, weigh?

No Satorian , SPECTRA or PIRATE are classified , but seeing the companies , the people involved , the time it took , the determination about these element since the beggining of Rafale project , and the real life exercise swhen Rafale didn’t even use his all capabilities of stealth and EOS sensors and still came on top and especially , the opinion of some qualified experts and pilots that i would trust about 100 times more than a forum

So you have no numbers? That’s all I wanted to know.

but i respect your opinion

The thing is… I don’t have a particular opinion. I’m only able to judge fighter jets by how they look. Everything else is beyond my clearance (“None”). I have no clue which plane is the better one and I assume that neither party/consortium is stupid or inept.

I was just anwering to a sarcasm that i wrongly thought was one more free attack on our plane and apologized for it . cheers 😉

I’d like to have demilitarized versions of the Rafale as well as the Eurofighter as personal jets. And a Mirage 2000-5 too! 🙂

So the B-1B, B-2, and Tu-160 are all smoke and mirrors then? None of them ever hit 200 aircraft…

Yes, because as my grim emoticon hinted at: I spoke with grave seriousness and 200 is a number of utter holy importance by which all aircraft production is to be measured. Do! Not! Question! 200!

Satorian, people like you & sferrin are probably still livid that the US failed to Saudi-Arabia-ise the Russian Federation, as all was going to plan until Putin assumed power. Oh dear, no secure, cheap oil & gas for the yanks, the ‘scramble’ for Central Asia’s natural resources- all but lost, and I won’t even start on Iraq (still, you could always invade Canada, I hear they have huge reserves).

That’s fantastic. I make a statement about government friendly media not being credible (hint: already defining them with bias makes them hardly reliable, doesn’t it?), which I apply to any media of any other country, and you come with personal attacks and prejudices. Beyond that, especially Russia recently made head lines with their treatment of press, journalists and the media in general. I wonder why you took it so personal. While Russia might pose a very specific governmental challenge not immediately accessible to our sensibilities (much like China or India for example), chastising somebody for criticizing media in bed with the government (or at least exchanging the occasional french kiss) does any country’s people a disservice. 😉

Here’s some additional food for: Why should I immediately care about what the US achieved or didn’t achieve? The answer is quite simple and obvious, really: I’m not a US citizen. I reside in Germany.

Oh, went-off topic. I’d like to remind you that the MiG 1-44 project flew when the company was in the black, and Sukhoi managed a similar feat with their S-37. However, those dark days have gone, IMF loans re-paid, Govt. finances looking quite ‘chirpy’, Sukhoi’s order books full (even moreso once some sort of Iranian order materialises), so it won’t be long before the PAK-FA flies, under the auspices of UAC.

I’m all for geopolitical parity in the global defense equilibrium and efforts that balance the US dominance in military issues, I’m all for a financially healthy and sound Russian nation that allows it people to live in freedom and prosperity, I’m all for a stronger integration of Russia into the European community AND I’m all for Russia building beautiful, kickass planes.

Are we done now? 🙂

As far as I’m concerned anymore anything less than oh, I don’t know something rolling out of a hangar or even shown under construction, is just smoke and mirrors.

Anything less than something taking off, flying and landing under its own power while the production lines are busy with pumping out at least 200 copies is smoke mirrors as far as I’m concerned. 😀

have twice the fuel external of EF-2000 , and have stealth features and advanced EOS sensors that have nothing to envy to any plane except the latest of US technology like F-22/F-35

Can you quantify that in some way? What is the Rafale’s exact RCS? What is the Typhoon’s or Superbug’s RCS? Do you have any data at hand about the EOS’ capability as compared to PIRATE, MiG-35 OLS, the F-35 IRST?

something the EF cannot do because of its limited range

In another thread we established the engines of Rafale and Typhoon to be within 2% of each in terms of SFC and similar in drag (deducted from power and top speed), and both at least carry similar internal fuel. Do you consider the Rafale significantly superior here? How many pounds of fuel can it take more and how much further does it reach that way?

the other lacks stability at subsonic speed

Can you back this up in some way? How does this supposed lack of stability affect the plane negatively, assuming you are not just talking about the relaxed static stability.

By the way , new advanced radars are coming for Rafale , that will probably outperform anything European done before

The same can be claimed for the Typhoon. There is a reason why backmarker teams in F1 don’t catch up during the season despite their continued research and development: Everyone else does the same.

now they say they want navalized EF-2000 … which might even more inflate the bill of EF

I would be surprised if anyone but GB (or other partners deciding to opt in on a naval Typhoon) had to foot the bill. And the price benchmark here would be the F-35, which is far from finished and has increasing costs as well.

and this advantages might be reduced to 0 in less than a few years

Or they might be the same or even greater. It might a whole of things. It’s not like the Typhoon parties are twiddling their thumbs.

but that won’t be grounded 50% of the time as it doesn’t have the range

I would again politely ask to quantify this claim and provide data to back it up.

will cost too much both in price and maintenance compared to its real operational usefulness

Do you have any data on the prices for the latest export offerings?
And as for maintenance, just recently there was a report on German TV that also showed and gave voice to some mechanics/engineers being trained on Typhoon maintenance and they said that it does nearly every diagnosis on its own and the computer feedback as well as technical layout make it very easy to maintain.

It’s not that far off-topic. It’s about the merit of HMCS depending on the platform’s other capabilities, be it sensor fusion, netcentric warfare or agility.
The claim has been that due to its unmatched combat effectiveness and agility the F-22 would not need a HMCS, while some of us contest this.

But you are right in so far as this base for the slight digression should not be forgotten.

Actually, I did a small calculation:

The Hornet is 35° nose down and at ~180 kts. This translates into a descent of 118.15 feet per second.

From frame 1 to frame 2 it descended 90 feet.

This means the pipper stayed 0.76s on target. Three quarter of a second. Even if he descended a bit quicker, as he seems to nose down further, it looks like the reticle would have been on the F-22 at least half a second.

Would that be enough?