Gentlemen , it is more than obvious that Mr JSR doesn ‘t known what he ‘s talking about . I smell a trollish perfume …
Just few corrections :

UAE after getting used to extra thrust of F-16E is not so much impressed.

The GE F110-132 engine was specifically designed to allow the Viper not to loose too much energy while carrying routinely CFTs . The F-16E (Blk60) is also heavier than other Vipers . The Rafale with the actual M-88 engines can out accelerate the F-16E at any given altitude and flight regime .
The simple fact that the UAE are not asking anymore for upgraded M88s is telling . They use the F-16E/F and the M2000-9 as multirole fighters and they know now that the Rafale has a better crusing speed and a better fuel ratio than both when loaded . It is all they were asking for .

THere is practically zero credibility behind extra thrust engine of M-88.

Wrong . Look for the M88-3 with a thrust of 90kN, and the M88-4 with 110kN . From Flight International :

The M88-3 features a new LP compressor with higher mass flow (from 65kg/s in the -2 to 73.4kg/s). A new variable stator vane stage has been introduced, permitting the engine to operate at optimum conditions through a much wider range, reducing part-power-specific fuel consumption and providing more operational flexibility to suit the Rafale’s multimission role. The development comes out of Snecma’s CENTOR LP compressor research programme and from other exploratory developments carried out by Snecma in recent years.

JSR said :

Either French politician sucks or Rafale sucks big time or both.

Correction : you suck because you don ‘t have the required knowledge to give anything more than a poor opinion , sorry to say .

Indian decision is politically motivated.

Wrong . In fact , it is the very first time that a fighter is going to be chosen on pure capabilities and ToT , ever . Not knowing it shows a poor understanding of the situation at hand to say the least .
And btw Mr JSR , the infamous Super Hornet is not making the cut , far from it .

Cheers .

Quadbike , I agree that the Gripen “should” have a slightly lower RCS but the M2000 RDY-2 radar is no slotch and has excellent LPI capabilities . The M2000-5Mk2 also has a top notch ECM system with the ICMS MkIII .
I also agree that an HMD can be of great use in dogfight but as the French pilots say : “there are ways to counter an HMD equipped fighter ” .

Cheers .

arquebus :

The M2K was just an updated Mirage 3/5.

TooCool_12f responded with :

ouch!!! almost fell from my seat reading you…

Well , the 2000 is far more than an updated III or 5 but there is no need to fall from your seat TooCool because arquebus has a point , somehow .
Indeed , the M2000 was designed from what Dassault learned from all the Mirage serie and directly from the III and 5 .
But dear arquebus , the knowledge and newer tools used to design the M2000 lead to something far more efficient wrt to flight characteristics .
While showing a very similar look than the Mirage III , the airframe is vastly different wrt unstability , airflow control and lift . In fact , the M2000 was the first delta fighter to show outstanding low speed agility (also thanks to its new FCS) while being a high speed , high altitude interceptor .
It somehow took the fighter market by surprise . The M2000 prototype first flew in 1978 and participated at the Farnborough Airshow the same year (!) :

In that summer, at the Farnborough Airshow, this machine displayed not only excellent handling capabilities, but also a full control at 204 km/h and 26 degree angle of attack.(in 1978) This was totally unexpected in a delta-wing fighter, and proved how CCD controls were capable of overcoming the delta wing shortcomings related to poor low-speed control, while retaining the advantages, such as low-drag, low radar cross section, ideal high speed aerodynamics and simplicity, provided by the absence of horizontal tail surfaces.

The engine thrust with AB went from 14.000lb (Mirage III) to 21.000lb . The rate of climb jumped from 185m/s to 285 m/s (!) .
Arquebus , we are talking about a very different beast here 😎

Now and in my humble opinion , a Gripen driver should be very worried if he ‘s up against a M2000-5Mk2 BVR , especialy if the later is already flying high up which is its normal attitude . If the fight is up close (WVR) , the Gripen driver better be a bloody good driver or he ‘s gonna get shot .
A French instructor flying a M2000-9 managed a virtual canon kill on a F-22 , do you remember 😉
An experienced M2000-5 driver once pushed and forced a Rafale driver to go as slow as 18kts (!) ~without control loss~ to get the cannon kill .
I would like to hear the same stories about a Gripen but … :rolleyes:

To be honest , I think the M2000-5Mk2 is better than the Gripen in AtoA .
My opinion anyway …

Cheers .

EE :

Give Bluewings a lesson in common sense & things might be a bit better around here.

It is the second time in my life that someone is telling me that I lack common sense and I am 48 . The other person was my father when at 16 years old I told him that I wanted to take a morgage to buy my fisrt bike when my wedge was the one of an apprentice .

It has nothing to do with a lack of common sense EE but more with the fact that some posters like you base their beliefs on the futur and not on the present . It is your right to believe that today the Typhoon is better than the Rafale in AtoA , I believe the opposite .
As Tay said and I agree with him , when the Captor-E will be fully operational the Typhoon will get the first look but until then , it hasn ‘t .
The actual m-scan radar can see further away than the Pesa RBE2 but the time it takes to scan the entire FoV and start again is much , much longer . Also , its LPI capability is nowhere near the RBE2 ‘s and I don ‘t think we need to debate on this . So , at the moment I see the Rafale having an edge on detection capabilities .
We could also debate the capabilities of the RWRs to detect each other radar and there again , I bet that the Rafale can detect the Captor-M easier than the Typhoon can detect the RBE2 .

You should also keep in mind the capability given by the IR Mica which is often underlooked .
If ~I say IF~ the Rafale manage to get an electronic “hearing” on the Captor-C , it can or pass on the info or stay outside the Captor ‘s cone and flank to get within 30km , get a LRF 3D vectoring/ranging and fire IR Mica(s) and all of this with the radar off .
The Typhoon has a laser warning system but it still has to deal with the incoming mica(s) .

EE, don ‘t tell me that I am dreaming because the Rafale has been designed to fight this way (amongst other ways) .
When the Typhoon will have the Captor-E and Meteors , things will change in favor of the Typhoon , I know that EE but until then …

Btw , I take the Su-35 over any F-15 . Anyday .

Cheers .

EE :

In case you don’t want to click on the link to believe your own words, I’ll go through the mere effort of quoting yourself

I didn ‘t remember I said that (honest) , I usually keep it for myself but since you called me … So yes I think the Typhoon aerodynamic design is indeed from the 80s . Give the M2000-5 a 12,000kg thrust engine (2,300kg more than the actual engine) and you end up with a M2000 probably capable to rival the Typhoon ‘s manoeuvrability and sustained turn rate at high mach .
Dassault ‘s people often said that the Typhoon ‘s design is not what it should be for a high altitude interceptor (because IT IS an interceptor) .

When the USA made the F-15 Eagle , they said “not a pound or a dollar for AtoG” but they knew that they could still fit some AtoG load because of the robustness of the airframe . Typhoon ‘s design was a bit more flexible than that and some multirole capabilities were outlined from the begining , but that ‘s it .
I say again , when one build a true multirole fighter he/she keeps in mind very important things like heavy weapon load and great range .
Do I have to repeat again that the Typhoon only has 3 (three) true heavy hardpoints (and not 5) if it wants to carry an heavy load far away ?
http://www.on-target-aviation.com/Assetts/images/TYPHOON%20LOADOUT%20CHART%20copy.jpg

The Rafale has 5 (five) true heavy hardpoints , all of them wet and all of them usable for real , unlike the Typhoon because of its crazy gear system .
Since we are on externals , the Typhoon ‘s CFT can take 1.500l of jet fuel when the Rafale CFTs (called fast pack) can take 2.3000l of jet fuel .
I also heard that the Typhoon was recently cleared for 24.500kg MTOW when the Rafale ‘s margin is 27.000kg but it ‘s not in use to avoid stress fatigue .
Since we talk about external load , what is the Typhoon ‘s “bring back” capability ?
The Rafale M landing on a carrier with a 6.5m/s sink rate can bring back 15.7 tons (which translate into 5 tons of external load) .

All of this to say that the Rafale is extremely strongly build and can emport more than the Typhoon while weighting a ton less for the same size .
It is telling much .

Well actually, the canards and it’s design does help it at both high altitude and speeds. Look it up. A little bit of research will do you good.
So where does this “fact” come from that the Rafale turns tighter than the Typhoon at any regime and altitude

Again , it is YOU who should look it up . Do I need to point at some very various studies on closed coupled canards designs ? For cry out loud !
Yes the Typhoon Team managed to get the aerodynamics wrong , or at least not optimum . I wish that I knew enough math to explain the claim but I can only follow the Dassault people who have been designing canards equipped fighters for more than 40 years .
A good example is the Mirage IIIS :

It is all about instantaneous turn rate and not about sustained turn rate . Turning inside the other is the idea but I already said that .

Where did you learn this from?

““The operational part of the ‘Exercise Indradhanush-2007’ began with a series of 1 vs 1 air combat sorties… The RAF pilots were candid in their admission of the Su-30 MKI’s observed superior maneuvering in the air, just as they had studied, prepared and anticipated.“
From :
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/typhoon-vs-su-30mki-the-2007-indra-dhanush-exercise-03470/

Proof?

Watch various Typhoon displays and use your eyes . Check how it does barrel-rolls and verify the longitudinal axis during the manoeuver , it is more than obvious . If you ask yourself why , go again to canards aerodynamics .

And the Rafale will have to sacrifice various hardpoints for the A/A missiles to carry A/G weapons & drop tanks etc. See the design philosophy? Obviously not…

You can load the Rafale like a mule , it will always have 4 missiles . It is YOU who doesn ‘t see the philosophy EE . And please stop arguying on external load since the Typhoon can ‘t even compete .

CFTs for missions aimed at multi-role with A/G as a priority and drop tanks for multi-role missions with A/A as a priority. One could look at it in that perspective.

There , I agree .
Just one question : Are the Typhoon ‘s CFTs really cleared for operational use and if so , since when ?
Rafale “Fast Packs” are cleared and operational since 2001 but have never been used (no need so far) .

What makes you think the Rafale is better than the Typhoon in A/A?

To make it short : Lower RCS , better radar , excellent passive sensors , better offensive electronic warfare suite , Mica IR , better aerodynamics .

I said that I was a Typhoon fan , I know the jet well . It is YOU again who think that I don ‘t know what I am talking about . I am also a big fan of the F-22 , I like very much the F-16 and the M2000 . I also know my bit about the SH (while I don ‘t like it much) .
I am also admirative of the Flanker family .

So why am I a Typhoon fan ? I like its engines , its sheer thrust , its acceleration , its look , its capability to fight in the vertical plane , its Pirate system , its towed decoys and its 4 under belly AtoA hardpoints .

Cheers .

swerve :

It was reported some time before that the aircraft had been tested at 24500 kg.

How they did it ? What was the configuration ?

Aurel :

I would even say that is an advantage in the Indian competition.
Plenty of Flankers in Chinese service and a geography, that allows only fights “at altitude”.

India ‘s futur Interceptor is the T-50 (or T-xx ?) and it is why they ‘re looking for a true multirole (omnirole) fighter . They will not need the Typhoon/Rafale to fight J-20s (or else) .
Also , even an airliner can fly “at altitude” (10,000ft over the Himalayas) so any fighter can do . The problem is to start and/or re-start the engines on a high altitude airbase .

Cheers .

Jwcook :

and your intuition nearly makes up for the lack of good judgment

Oh really ? And what is telling you that the Typhoon is superior to the Rafale BVR , please ? Again , just checking …

Cheers .