Orca
I've no knowledge of the Rafale so cannot comment on the generation or obsolesence issues and am not particularly interested in seeing who can reach highest up the wall.
However, to bring equipment into service quickly you have to reduce design risk. Essentially this means buying off the shelf equipment that is some way into its design life. To keep it up to date you have to look at a technology refresh earlier in the aircraft life cycle and this costs a lot.
If you are starting with a clean sheet and are accepting a lot of risk to make a technology leap, you have to start from a paper design. This adds years to the introduction of the aircraft but delays the point at which a technology refresh is required. This does have the advantage of being able to plan redundanct capability or tailor the design to your percieved future needs.
Essentially, you have to adopt a strategy that fits your need and that you can afford, and be able to absorb the cost and delay of technology risks biting you. However, by making the higher investment at the outset you may reduce your life cycle costs by reducing the number of technology injects or shortening the steps to achieve them.
I agree with the cumbersome nature of the partner nations organisation but again it is a balancing act. You can spread initial and subsequent development costs however many ways.
As to who made the right decision only time will tell but I would suggest that the export sales put Typhoon in the lead because money will become available from outside the organisation for product investment. Given development costs for a 6th generation it is hard to see France stand alone again. That is not an anti-french sentiment, I admire both them and swedish for what they have achieved, but is a cold economic fact. Even the US had to look for investors in F-35.
regards
retard