This is what I think too.
The F-35 is clearly the target of this article.

I thought the target of this article was an assessment of the Rafale and not bashing of other types.;)

And that’s the point of a forum ! Live with it;)

Making up stories from nothing? I see no problem in making up minds at all. But when I made the statement “while people are quick in claiming it’s better than Typhoon”, it was clear to me that such kind of conclusion would be invented by those with the right bias and just enough imagination. While being heavily attacked for that by our local cheerleader, it’s pleasant to see that I’m right on that as I have forseen it. Many people are just to predictable.

A French air force Rafale has for the first time fired an AASM guided bomb and a Mica air-to-air missile during the same mission, demonstrating its operational flexibility. (French AF photo)
On Tuesday, October 27, 2009 a Rafale belonging to the French air force’s trials unit, the Centre des Expériences Aériennes Militaires (CEAM) at Mont-de-Marsan, fired during a single mission two types of weapons into the Biscarosse firing range.

First, the aircraft fired an AASM-IIR (air-ground modular weapon) equipped with an infra-red imaging (IIR) homing head to engage a ground target. The AASM-IIR hit the target area with the expected accuracy after having traveled thirty miles from the point of firing off the coast.

The aircraft then fired a Mica EM (missile interception, combat and self defense) air-to-air missile fitted with a radar homing head, and hit a remote-controlled target simulating an aerial threat. Both firings were successful.

These firings demonstrate the Rafale’s ability to deliver long-range precision weapons while retaining its self-defense capabilities against aerial threats.
The AASM-IIR is an improved variant of the AASM INS / GPS (inertial guidance hybridized GPS) guided bomb used since 2008 in Afghanistan.

Like the previous version, the AASM-IIR has a guidance system that combines GPS and INS (inertial navigation), but adds an infrared guidance system.

With hybrid GPS/inertial guidance, the accuracy obtained is metric (between 5 and 10 meters). By adding an infrared imager, accuracy increases to less than five meters.

After release from the aircraft, the AASM-IIR heads to the designated target area whose coordinates were previously programmed into the inertial navigation system. In the terminal phase, the weapon is guided to the target by comparing the observed scene to the one in its memory, thereby increasing accuracy of the point of impact.
Both versions of the AASM offer a flexible precision-guided attack capability, while allowing the Rafale to remain outside the effective range of enemy defenses, thereby adding to its operational versatility as it can simultaneously fly close air support and deep strike missions.

The CEAM hopes to deliver the AASM-IIR to operational units in early 2010.

A third version of the weapon, the AASM Laser, whose use would be preferred against moving targets, is currently under development.

-ends-

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/109715/rafale-in-simultaneous-firing-of-aasm_ir%2C-mica_em.html

I wonder if you could post the instantaneous and sustained turn rate figures for the Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, and F-22, so we can see how they stack up.:rolleyes:

At least for instanous turn rates the ECDs are all reported with ~30°/sec+. According to that youtube video from the USAF pilot who spoke about the Su-30MKI, turn rate of the F-22 is 28°/sec.

The F-35C’s Shipboard bringback is ~10k lbs of ordinance out of it’s total load of ~18k lbs.

10k lbs weapons and fuel I assume? Rafale M has a bring back capability of ~5,2t of weapons and fuel or 11440 lbs.

My french is well enough and I roughly understood what is said. And it’s exactly what I expected from the very beginning when I said:

while people are quick in claiming it’s better than Typhoon

You are making up these things as expected. No one discredits this pilots and his comments here and he clearly doesn’t compare the Rafale to the Typhoon, nor has he flown the latter one.

But because he states this:

If I had to go into combat, on any mission, against anyone, I would, without question, choose the Rafale.

You get excited and expect he rates the Rafale higher than the Typhoon because it’s a british pilot.

—

It’s well obvious that you go into the defensive. And I’m quite certain that you’ll come up with Collins statement as a “prove” of superiority of the Rafale in future discussions. I know you well to well to not recognise your selective fanboyish approach. Jacko made a valid point, if Collins haven’t flown the Typhoon he is not able to judge from experience and he doesn’t mentioned the Typhoon for a good reason, he HAVEN’T flown it! That you are making up stuff from that is well known, you have done so uncountable times before.

It loiters in subsonic. And the combat radius is calculated without the time spent on combat zone for all the fighters.

True, but loitering time and combat reserves aren’t the same.

Of course it does on internal fuel, as it can’t supercruise with EFTs!

It can do. Those tanks are actually optimised to scope with the high performance envelope of the aircraft.

That’s not the point. The point is that F 35 can do the same (250 Nmiles in supersonic + much more than 250 nmiles in subsonic). So, where is the advantage of the EF ???????????

I merely corrected your incorrect statement.