cost, yes, maybe… it all depends on how much development dassault wants to charage once it started selling it to exports.

In the end, the price may be much closer between the two than it is now.

As for the A2A capabilities, no need to be particularily “creative”, the previous exercises set aside (rafale quite surprised navy crews that faced it), the Rafale is rated for higher G-load (standard is +9G, lightly loaded like in demos, it pulls 10Gs routinely, and can pull up to 11 should the need be from what I’ve read) resulting in much tighter turn radius for a given speed, and in the same time it has a lower wing loading (thanks to the delta design) and as good or better T/W ratio (not to speak about thrust to drag ratio, as the SH is all but an aerodynamic success)

In BVR, the Sh has some good capabilities (good electronics) but the Rafale excells there as well, and with an airframe that is “discrete” as says Dassault, which means it has quite a low RCS and is rather hard to detect, combined with active and passive detection capabilities which, obviously, are appreciated when compared to others (one example: the swiss competition where apparently, it outdid the Typhoon in A2A capabilities, while it is the one area where the Typhoon should shine as of today)

I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find the Super Hornet on the British carriers, but I’d be totally astonished if the RN wanted the Rafale. The Rafale lost the EFA competition because it isn’t capable enough, and it’s lost all but one fighter competition since because it’s not capable enough. A very pretty aeroplane, certainly, but it’s size tells against it.

The only possible war-fighting scenario for the new British carriers will be in the South Atlantic. There the capability of the Super Hornet will be important.

Regards

ROFL 😀

France made the Rafale as EFA lacked capabilities they needed. If anything, it would be the “EFA that has been eliminated by the french”, for one.

as far as size goes, yes it has a smaller airframe (is an advantage since it will be easier to park on a carrier, btw) and in the same time can go further unrefueled and can carry up to 15tons of fuel and ordnance which is about the same as the bigger SH…

not forgetting that if the two meet in air combat, the rafale, basically, can fly rings around the SH…

As for competitions, the Rafale fared much better in any evaluationin which it participated… as it was shortlisted (or even won the technical competition) each time. Even Jon Lake recognized feat in the article published yesterday, which is not a small achievement…

Now, tell me, with the exception of “not wanting the french aircraft, which IMHO will be the sole choice criteria, should such situation occur, why would the british turn the rafale down in favor of the SH?

and a completely different engine, as well, but he was talking about technologies involved of which a certain amount was worked upon with the M4000 prototype

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYueaFelZ9U

it flew quite nicely, in fact 😀

and, in answer to Hotdog, yes, the rafale program would exist, as it was the next generation from the M2000/M4000

er, let’s say: “officially”

It would appear that the top speed for the Mirage IV had two values, the official one, and the “one we may have achieved but we won’t talk about it”… 😀

that was a nice looking aircraft as well… 🙂

that idea works out with weaker counterparts, like in Korea, for example, but in countries like India or Brasil, try to use pressure will only motivate them to turn you down. Something republicans obviously cant’ grasp with their approach (from what W’s policy was or what Romney seems to be up to

well… if the f-35 is again delayed, or worse, you never know… there’s a saying “never say never” 😉