Both the rafale and the typgoon are multi-role fighters. But the rafale was designed from the beginning to make it truely "omni-roled" and hence was designed as a better strike fighter than the rafale. The Typhoon was designed with primary importance to AtoA combat and has a better thrust to weight ratio than the rafale. The IAF already have the Su-30MKI in the air superiority role (Note: the Su-30MKI is classified as a multi-role air superiority fighter). Now the IAF needs an aircraft which excels in Air to Ground roles without compromising much in Air to Air combat. I think the rafale fits the requirement perfectly.
ToT is tooo loose a word that is going around. We dont know what GOI as asked as a part of ToT. Every vendor touting to give as much as ToT as possible makes it even more difficult.
I agree with you here. No country, not even the russians will be willing to give 100% ToT.
If competition should be based on ToT then swedes would win it hands down since they have gone on the record offering FULL ToT including source codes for AESA.
ToT is not the only criteria of the competition. However, I believe the IAF had stated that ToT was an essential requirement.
My knowledge about the Gripen is limited, so correct me if I am wrong, but I heard that it uses many US components which means they need permission from the US to even sell the planes to India. Also, I did not know that the Gripen was offered with an AESA radar.
Rafale and typhoon uses very few or almost no US components and hence, we are less prone to sanctions. So in that case, I feel the MiG-35, Rafale and Typhoon have an edge.
How did you arrive at this conclusion ? Rafale is also pretty good to AtoA role.
I never said that the Rafale is poor in AtoA combat. I admit that the Rafale is pretty good too. I was only trying to compare the air to air capabilities of the two jets.
According to fas.org
Simulations conducted by British Aerospace and the British Defense Research Agency compared the effectiveness of the F-15C, Rafale, EF-2000, and F-22 against the Russian Su-35 armed with active radar missiles similar to the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The Rafale achieved a 1:1 kill ratio (1 Su-35 destroyed for each Rafale lost). The EF-2000 kill ratio was 4.5:1 while the F-22 achieved a ratio of 10:1. In stark contrast was the F-15C, losing 1.3 Eagles for each Su-35 destroyed.
Federation of American Scientists :: F-15 Eagle
Although the above simulation results are not of Typhoon vs. Rafale but a correlation can be made by considering their simulation results against Su-35.
Although the aircraft's true capabilities in air to air can only be compared in a real one-on-one dogfight, the above article can give us a clue of their true performance which according to the study goes in favour of the typhoon (though maybe not as much as cited in the article).
Rafale and EF are two of the most expensive aircrafts that are competing for the tender. Even $20Billion deal for 120 aircrafts seems remote possibility when it comes to these two aircrafts.
If you read my post carefully, you will find that i only said the rafale is cheaper than the typhoon. I
did not say that they were the cheapest in the competition. I was comparing the rafale and the typhoon.
I am not sure about that...Both are different AC's with little or less common between them ; except for avionics which was developed for Rafale from Mirage 2K. Rafale would still involve significant upgradation or new infrastructure to support it...however compared to other AC's it will score a brownie over here.
Little as it may be, I still think it is an advantage for the rafale.
