glad rag - if it is the same chap, experience shows that his points often sound terribly reasonable but are general/generic in nature. And they are couched in that Blairite style whereby what's said is not untrue but creates an impression not fully sustained by the facts.
(We haven't yet hit the point in his usual MO whereby his posts denegerate into priapismic xenophobic pro-Rafale mud-slinging, bolstered by some dodgy reference to the laws of physics which 'prove', according to him, the superiority of Rafale to anything designed by those of an Anglo-Saxon bent.)
However, in answer to your direct question, let's look at what he says:
Just buy the Rafale M, who is better than the JSF,F-18,Typhoon,Gripen, Mig29K or Su-33.
There is, for obvious reasons, no proof that the Rafale is better than JSF. Certainly, in terms of the avionics, if the F-35 (if it happens) appears with sensor capability only 60% as good as intended, it knocks Rafale into un chapeau cocked. Is it
really better than the F/A-18? He
thinks it is, insists it is, but offers nothing approximating to reasonable evidence that it
is.
Since there is no Seaphoon, the point about Typhoon vs Rafale M is moot, and the debate over which of Rafale and Typhoon is better in general can go on for years without adequate resolution - only when a number of people who've a reasonable number of hours on both types (i.e. exchange bods between Typhoon & Rafale fleets) can make a comparison will that one be settled, if it ever will be.
Likewise Gripen - no carrier variant, not under consideration for CV(F) - at least at the moment, despite the SAAB graphics department's best efforts.
MiG-29K and Su-33 are irrelevant anyway, since I can't see us buying either of those.
The Rafale M is at 60 millions US $
To which the response is for what - do we get the airframe cheap, but at hideously high support costs?
And at least it is european...
A very Gaullist view - the importance of origin mattering more than capability on offer to our poster.
Then -
No !!!!
The rafale M is flying over A-stan, it is a omni-role airplane, not a expensive piece of junk, who will never fly operationally as the F-35 ! About the Typhoon, it is a good air to air aircraft, but only on that role !
As has been pointed out, it has been used over Aghanistan, but it isn't omni-role yet, since it lacks designation capability. Again, an assertion about the F-35. Expensive - yes, looks like it will be, even allowing for supposedly impressive low operating costs; piece of junk - still to be proven; never fly operationally - who knows?
And we get the standard-issue statement from Rafale proponents suggesting that Typhoon is an air-to-air only platform, ignoring the fact that (unlike Rafale at present) it can self-designate LGB, and has been able to do so since 2008 and the declaration of multi-role capability.
And, of course, this is assertion - the chap offers no hard evidence to prove his point, probably because he has none, and unless several XI(F) chaps I know have been lying harder than a politician with a dodgy expenses form, I believe him to be wrong. What's more the evidence that is available contradicts him - note the way in which some of the problems in terms of finding the time to train for air-to-ground, integration of PWIV, etc, etc have been mentioned by people who fly Typhoon, without any suggestion that the air-to-ground capability is the chimera astronaute wants us to believe, taking his word over that of those who fly the Typhoon.
This is then followed by (and note the slight ramping up of the xenophobia):
At least it is flying on operation, not like the plastic junk that the gringos want to sell you !
Again, a bit of a non-point, since the Rafale has been around a tad longer than the F-35. And the point can be taken to absurdist extremes thanks to its inherent lack of relevance, since it could just as easily be said that at least the Fairey Battle was flying on ops in 1940, unlike the strange all-wooden thing de Havilland were trying to sell the RAF at the time...
The Rafale is on the block 3, soon it will be on the 4, then it will do everything you can ask to an omni-role fighter !
What about the Super-trash or the Typhoon ? I don t ever talk about the gringos junk F-35 !
Note the inherent contradiction here - last time round, the Rafale was an Omni-role fighter, but now it isn't - at least at the moment - as omni-role as we were meant to believe from that posting. And when is 'soon' for the arrival of Block 4? Does this give the aircraft the same or better capabilites than (say) Super Hornet? It's all blustering assertion again.
There's no attempt to comprehend what F/A-18E & F can actually do (they can guide their own weapons onto a DMPI and the fun that can be had with the decoupled cockpits on the latest F-models possibly put the SH ahead of the Rafale)
The Rafale is the only option to allow the FAA to have an equipement up to date, with no snags and a reasonable price !
We have no clear price comparison on the overall packages between the Rafale and the SH. What, exactly, would the TLCs look like for the each? What would the support package look like? What about weapons clearances - how much would it cost to get (say) Brimstone on Rafale versus on the SH? What about workshare for British industry? Experience of working with the US suggests that there'd be some, whereas experience to date of working with Dassault (AFVG, Jaguar) suggests that it might be lacking. It might not.
The problem is that his points are generally spotterish assertions drawn from public domain literature telling us how wonderful the aircraft is, without any proper consideration of all the factors which would influence any putative procurement of Rafale or F/A-18E/F to say what the best option is. It's simple assertion that upon closer examination is based entirely upon the fact that that Rafale is a decent aircraft (not disputed), will have additional capability added (ditto), but because it isn't American, is European, and - even better - is French, is therefore the best option.
That, to me, doesn't stack up.