In the configuration you suggest air-to-air missiles are purely for self defense. In theory a Rafale carrying sub sonic fuel tanks, GBU's and assorted glide munitions can engage fighters and SAMs but in the real world fighters while on a penetration mission are at a disadvantage due to altitude, 'G' budget and AoA limit imposed by ordnance and extra fuel or asymmetric load. In this configuration G limit can be as low as 3G and AoA limit as low as 10 under such conditions pilots don't go looking for a fight (BVR /WVR) and stay well away from SAM batteries. Omni role capability is useful when you have established air superiority and destroyed all enemy air defense but if this is the case a lumbering B-52 carrying thousands of pounds of destructive bombs, is cheaper and far more effective. Of course if India is at war with Libya or Mali omni role is very useful.
The G Limit is only an issue if you go into close combat and obviously no Rafale will do it with bombs and fuel tanks, but as said, it could engage air targets in BVR ranges.
The main point however was, that it's a fighter developed with all necessary techs and systems build in, which makes it simpler to switch between roles, unlike older generation of fighters. An F16 or F18SH for excample needs a dedicated SEAD version, with special sensors and jamming pods to do the mission. These are not available every time and in lower numbers, which means more time is needed till the mission could be completed. For Rafale however, that is no issue since any Rafale comes with the same SPECTRA capabilities and any Rafale loaded with AASM could be used in this role.
One point that has come up is that rafale while being in the same generation is superior due to spectra thus has an edge over f16s... however f16s are more cost effective... so if you are able to get more f16s in the same budget, which option should countries go for? Can more f16s than probable lesser number of rafale overwhelm the capabilities? Does fighter attrition/destruction effect the progress of a mission.. so if some rafales are lost, will it effect that airforce more than if that country had higher f16s at its disposal to carry out the same misson?
More expensive, because it is more capable of course, so you get what you paid for! Twice the number, means also more costs to operate! That's the reason why modern air forces are switching from single role A2A and A2G fighters, to multi role fighters that can do both, because that increases capability of the fleet, while reducing overall costs.
Wrt which fighter a country should take question, that depends on if the country can afford to buy an operate an advanced twin engine fighter and if it has the requirement for it?
Most advanced air forces use bigger twin engine fighters for the air superiority, or important strike roles, since light single engine fighters often are less suitable for them.
Countries that are smaller, with less range/endurance requirements, or that simply can't afford them, will opt for smaller fighters instead.
Switzerland is a good example, they neither have the requirement to do more than air policing roles, nor can they afford mordern twin engine fighters anymore. The Gripen was the best choice for their needs, although the evaluation clearly showed the superiority of EF and Rafale.
The ATLC setup was clearly outlined in the AFM issue.. where one force was allowed to act in its own platform and then simulate.
Hence when it mentioned both platforms working as blue air and red air.. both platforms would then end up at the receiving end of red air.. and here the French have conveniently managed to excuse their scores.
So presented a one sided score story officially or unofficially is still chest beating.
Not at all, since they cleared things up by explaining that Rafale also were used in red forces simulating Russian Migs with Russian missiles, while they shot down EFs. The Brits on the other sides, claimed they were the only one which were on red and limited in capability, but didn't refused the kills either.
Same goes for the F22 pilots that engaged the Rafale in close combats back then, all they said was, that they wasn't killed a single time, but they couldn't refuse that the combats went into draws as stated by the French.
However, both showed the capability of the fighter in A2A combats, especially since Rafale often is considered as a strike fighter like the Super Hornet only, but as I said earlier, it is way more comparable in it's capability to the F16, only more advanced.
which is more weapon orientated.. if you replace the F-16's GBU-12 with a JSOW you too have an aircraft able to attack 6 targets simultaneously
True, it is the capability of the weapon, but also because Rafale has it as an alternative to LGB in this class and is able to provide target data even after take off gathered by it's internal systems. Btw, JSOWs are stand of weapons and can't be carried in such large numbers by F16, afaik it can carry only 4 at max and that only without wing fuel tanks.
