Well one or two sites back it was stated that the Indians haven’t set up all the commitees yet, which are necessary to evaluate all aspects of the biddings. It has been stated that the offset evaluation team is still not up and running etc. and that’s probably the main cause for the delays. I don’t think that the Libyan actions have an impact on this, albeit I’m certain the Indians will follow this with some interest, but at the end of the day they have evaluated all the contenders themself and there is little they could learn from the combat actions, until classified details are released by the air forces.

@redreidy,
I’m afraid you’ll find a single link. The various reports about evaluation results were reported over many years within various sources (aviation magazines, internet articles/press releases). Thus far the Rafale has indeed beaten Typhoon in all competions at least wrt the length with which the aircraft maintained in the competition, but you rarely find exact reasons for the “why”.

Netherlands (2002):
There was a pure paper evaluation by an political institute evaluating Rafale, Typhoon and JSF and the results were 695, 583 and 697 points in that order. It has not been disclosed how these scores were assigned and in which areas the different aircraft scored how. There was no military evaluation and at best very basic evaluation of technical characteristics, as there was not even a formal transmission of relevant data by the manufacturers to my understanding.

South Korea (2002):
Su-35, Rafale, Typhoon and F-15K were evaluated by the ROKAF for its FX1 phase to procure 40 aircraft. The Su-35 and Typhoon were eliminated in the first round. Dunno whether the Rafale and F-15 were evaluated in SK itself, but I definitely know that the Su-35 and Typhoon weren’t.
It has been stated (by the French at least) that the Rafale ultimately beat the F-15 on technical terms, but that the latter was ultimately selected on political grounds, with Boeing being allowed to improve its offer. It has in fact not been disclosed why the Su-35 and Typhoon were eliminated in the first place. I would guess in case of the Su-35 due political and interoperability reasons and possibly due the fact that there was no other customer and in the case of the Typhoon due the lack of maturity at that time. The Typhoon wasn’t even flying in production form at the time of the down select and I would have opted for the F-15 as well for the simple reason of interoperability and the fact that it was delivering from day one alone.

Singapore (2005):
After the shortlisting of the F-15, Rafale and Typhoon in October 2003 all three contenders were evaluated in Singapore. Some suggest that the Typhoon was the prefered technical choice, but that it was dropped over uncertainities surrounding future orders and development schedules. At the end the F-15 scored once again, though the French claim once again that the Rafale beat it on technical terms and that the strong Euro was unfavourably pushing the price of the Rafale.

Brazil (2008 up to date):
The Eurofighter, Su-35BM and F-16 blk 60 are eliminated from the competition, the Rafale, Gripen NG and F/A-18E/F are down selected. Once again no reasons are disclosed for the decision. The Rafale is said to lead the race and being favoured by the Brazilian government, though sources suggest that the Industry and Air Force prefer the F/A-18 and Gripen NG. Multiple conflicting reports are leaked/released and the decision is repeatedly postponed. The new government made it clear that it will take the time needed to evaluate the offers thoroughly and the Rafale is no longer the preferred political choice (at least not officially).

Switzerland (2008 up to date):
Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon are all being evaluated by ArmaSuisse. A selection was supposed for 2009 but has been repeatedly delayed due political pressure. Rumours claim that the Rafale is the preferred choice, but there is neither an official confirmation nor an explanation for what reasons the Rafale is preferred.

India (2007 up to date):
This is the most difficult, and if someone asks me ridiculous, competition wrt the rumours. Virtually every contender was claimed to be “leading the race” or being the “preferred solution” or “has performed best in the evaluation”. The truth is no one knows for sure and I wouldn’t hold my breath at all until some down select is done and even then wait until a final announcement is done. Thus far Rafale and Typhoon are both repeatedly claimed to be leading the race and there are sources/rumours suggesting that both aircraft fared best in the eval, though there are other rumours suggesting others did (particularly Gripen). At the end of the day I would take all these rumours with a pinch of salt until something gets confirmed here, albeit the rumours about Rafale and Typhoon leading this race are quite persistent. But you know how it works, someone says I heared this and that, someone else spreads it somewhere else and at the end of the day a thousand sources are in fact based on a single origin.

Whatever one thing we can say for sure is that the Rafale has repeatedly survived longer than the Typhoon in various conditions, but at the end of the day it got never selected up to date.

Just my 2 ct.

@EELightning,
that’s not exactly news. Neither the Rafale, Typhoon or F/A-18 were considered back then. The IAFs original requirements were different from those today. That’s one of the reasons why RSK MiG for example had to make a new offer replacing the original MiG-29M1/M2 bid with the one for the MiG-35. It was also not clear what variant of the F-16 would be offered…

Special gadgets? Lol OBOGS has been in use since the late 80s in US fighters and can be found on all new European fighters.

well, its alot going on aerodynamicly when you add droptanks…so 6500 shouldnt be viable. 4075km probably is.

I agree with this. One nonetheless wonders how a single drop tank will increase the range by some 40%, while four tanks will increase range only by 60%. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure that something is odd about this claim.

Though I have done some calculations and arrived at the conclusion that a single ET adds 38% more fuel and reportedly offers 40% more range. This isn’t really viable as more weight and drag is certainly hurting your range. More fuel efficiency with more weight and drag isn’t viable and I suppose that the 1000 km figure is rounded anyway.

@Sign
Let alone that a 1000 km range increase with just one additional drop tank is extremely optimistic to stay polite. If max ferry range with for EDTs is stated with some 4000+ km, how do you explain that a single drop tank would increase the range by 1000 km, but three more tanks only increase range by some 500+ km? Come on apply some common sense and you’ll see that this claim is in fact completely unrealistic!