Typhoons range depends on its possibility to carry Taurus like missiles on the inner hardpoints or not. If yes in combination with the proposed 1500 l CFTs + 3 1000 l tanks range would be ~1800 km or more when 2000 l drop tanks are available (currently only 1000 l tanks are used).

dream on,

the eurofighter is bigger, weighter, have more drag than all delta canard, delta shape giving no really climbing edge, and under powered engines comparated to obesity not really consumption efficience from it!
and have only 3 wet points “over 600kgs” able points! even the tanks are tiny!

so range claims are fantasy, makes it diet to lose 1.5t, replace it with fuel, and it will maybe catch Rafale exeptional performances!

Typhoon has no active cancelation and it’s not certain that the Rafale has it now. It is definitely more difficult to use active cancelation against an AESA system and it might currently not work as the ECM of Rafale (and Typhoon as well) is using PESA.

wrong, it was developed to face AESA on nuke missiles! and Scalp EG!

http://www.janes.com/press/pc020628_1.shtml

i can’t imagine the british poodles buying a more reliable more advanced and usefull Tiger..
thought, they would ask share, build it, and claim they created it!

lol

cheap birds for cheap air force!

Rafale Out for Norway

In our May 11, 2006 article “Norway’s Future Fighter Competition: A Norwegian View,” Endre Lunde described how the replacement for the country’s F-16 fighters had evolved into a 4-way contest between the Lockheed/BAE/International F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, Dassault’s Rafale, the EADS/BAE EF-2000 Eurofighter Typhoon, and the upgraded Saab/BAE JAS-39N Gripen.

Now Endre Lunde informs DID that the Rafale is no longer in contention, a development reportedly confirmed by Norway’s Deputy Minister of Defense to a leading Norwegian newspaper. The announcement was apparently made during a two-day visit to Saab’s facilities in Linkoping, Sweden. Lunde notes that “…the Gripen so far has been the true outsider compared to the Eurofighter and the F-35 Lightning, but the recent announcements by Gripen on the prospects of a dedicated “N” version, and a long and patient process of building trust and support in Norway seems to be paying off.”

If true, this report means that Dassault’s Rafale is continuing its unbroken string of losses on the export front, a fact which is beginning to have development and budget ramifications for the platform.

Link:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/08/rafale-out-for-norway/index.php

where this guy says “Rafale is out of contest” ?

Norway want technical share and rewards about next fighter deal!

i doubt Dassault is ready to rewards more than they get with litle orders in norway as desperate consortium is ready to share thier flawed fighter !

As for this constant issue about time to height you keep on bleeting about it is widely known that the Rafale is underpowered and there has been pressure in France to develop the uprated M88 to deal with that. On the otherhand the EJ200 has an excellent power to weight ratio with strong growth potential. Your posts are sounding more and more like sour grapes! Go ahead and big up the Rafale if you want to just stop resorting to illconsidered arguments.

well , what the hell is about ej200?

is the engines flies alone in the RAF?

Rafale underpowered? the M88-3 was planed at first stage in the 80’s to anticipate export market with no french heavy weapons and eventually naval rafales B, since Snecma worked on a 90kN in 1996 and started to study a 111kN one, DGA later stated that only an ECO one could be fitted on M if needed!

in fact Rafale didn’t took 2t in 10 years, second T/W ratio of engines alone mean same than a big mac without bread!

and whatever yours biased “mags” says, claiming to have the best world fighter second only to the US raptor with 230m/s climb max and this with a 20% lighter bird isn’t quite glorious for a so called “agile” bird!
so even if your biger engines are “state of art” about T/W, a T/W ratio is more adequat with a whole plane rather an engine!

a cold war relic? yes, typhoon was designed with air air domination minds of the 80’s, with a mecanical radar able to light bud bottles to MOSKBA, average technologies of sensor fusion, very little multi roles in mind, rafale is the versus…
According to Jane’s Defence Weekly, questions of price and capability within the timeframe held the key to grounding Eurofighter’s bid. The consortium had flown out two jets last June to try to win the order.

The Typhoon project has been sharply criticised by MPs because of cost and time overruns and by others as an unnecessary relic of the cold war. There are serious doubts whether the full order for 636 planes for Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain will be met. http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,3604,1464519,00.html

make up your mind, ej200 was designed for a 9.7t plane, today the beast is closer to 12t, simple facts, i don’t need AFM or others mag to make the simple logic that planes are better light than taking weight, a bird can’t fly long with short legs and wings on overweight body!
it’s not a very bad plane, but stage on the average class levelcompareted to his challengers!

Foofoone makes me laugh every time! 😀

To read his posts you would of thought that the Rafale had won every contest it had entered! At the moment it is Eurofighter which has two export orders plus a large order book from the partner nations allowing the production lines to be kept open for years to come.

If Rafale doesn’t get an order soon then they will have trouble keeping the line open.

well germans will drop T3 too expensive as UK swaped thier orders birds with saudies, they not said they will go on with…

and export orders from no competitions clients suggess lots of rewards from uk as it was on austrian deal!

kind od rewards that no one are ready to accept, exepted no chance relic as eurofighter!

Rafale will get real clients that paye and not be payed to get a deal!

A high-speed, high-altitude missile shot imparts more kinetic energy to the missile, giving it longer range and/or more energy to use in endgame maneuvering. Using supercruise enables you to do this while keeping your RCS down and providing you with much better fuel economy.

keeping your Radar cross section down? heat and cross section are different!

and high speed can be done with afterburns!

supercruise was needed at low altitude for sead mainly, to not light IR sensors of foes!

over 30 000 feet supercruise is useless!