Were an insult ? show me please, so as to erase it my self.
You did say something disgusting by bringing family when replying to my post without any provocation. While my post did not contain anything personal or insulting. (Should sincerely apologise)
But back to topic, Eurofighter is indeed superior to Rafale.
When it comes to kinematics, Eurofighter flies faster and higher. Which matters in BVR combat. You did not provide any evidence to your claim that it cannot sustain high altitude.
Rafale has higher turn rate at low speed. But that's only relevant to WVR combat. Which is something only Russians care about.
Sure, Rafale has slightly higher payload at 9.5 tonnes. But it isn't 7.5 tonnes for Eurofighter. Typhoon is actually structurally cleared to carry 9 tonnes. But the fact is neither jets carry those numbers into real life operational Scenarios. Because there are no combination of weapons and fuel tanks that reaches that limit while not exceeding payloan specific capacity.
There is no credible evidence or OSINT analysis that says Rafale actually has lower RCS than Eurofighter. Both were aircrafts had conflicting reports about its RCS. Both reported to be ranging in-between 1-0.5m².
As for AESA radar development, Eurofighter isn't 10 years late as you claim. Consortium successfully completed AESA development under caeser program in 2000s. Which first flew in 2007 and euroradar consortium was ready to provide partner nations in 2010 with AESA front-end. (For comparison, Rafale recieved its AESA in 2012)
However, Captor M was already a capable FCR, and partner nations didn't feel the the urgency to justify the cost for AESA upgrade at that time.
What is important to note is, RBE2 AESA version uses same back-end as the pesa version. A processor unit that is quite old by today's standard. RBE2-XG might change that with new LRUs. But it isn't here yet.
Caeser program also did the same thing, it used back-end hardware of captor M and install and AESA.
However ECRS mk0 is a new radar designed from 2014-2020. It utilises the experience gained from Ceaser program. But it brings new front-end (next gen TRM compared to the one used on Caeser prototype) and new back-end LRUs. (Much more capable processor unit than original Captor M)
As to your claim it does not have air to ground fanction, well it does.
As for radar aperture, antenna size matter very much. The more T/RM you have the tighter beam you can generate. And the tighter your beam is, the further it can see and the better ECCM it has. It is a simple function of radar equation.
RBE2 has 838 T/RM. While ERCS MK0 has at least 1500 T/RM. It's gonna have close to 50% more in range performance at minimum. (Assuming they both bring similar technology. MK0 is actually newer)
Here is a simplified formula given by the AESA radar calculator developer.
"Rfac = ((Nx/Nref)^3*(Px/Pref))^(1/4)
Where the Px is your target/scaled radar's TRM power, Nx is your target/scaled radar's TRM number while variable with "ref" in it is the reference value or baseline value. Rfac here is range factor which you can multiply with your radar's reference range"
And we are not even discussing the advantages of swashplate in BVR combat. It allows you to move away earlier while maintaining lock. A worthwhile advantage.
This is way Turkish Eurofighter is gonna have an edge in BVR against greek Rafale.
