Why rafale
[Again I'm not sure as to your reasoning - why would they want Typhoon as a strike replacement when the F-35 is going to be in service? It doesn't offer anything over US aircraft in the strike role that I can see. You're right about the increasing relevance of UAVs and UCAVs. It will be very interesting to see what happens in the next decade in that regard.[/QUOTE]
BONZA,
I thought the subject was whether the U.S. should buy the TYPHOON. In my blog, I pointed out that most fighters are now being using in the attack mode, not as an interceptor. Of the three Euro fighters, the RAFALE is the only one that is carrier capable. It is also strike/attack oriented, so it would be useful now, without waiting for any "future tranches which may never come".
.
As far as whether the U.S. should buy it, I see not justification for any of canard planes. None offer any real advantage over the F-16 and F-18 in the attack/tactical bombing assignment.
The TYPHOON'S claim to fame is that it is the "BEST INTERCEPTOR YOU CAN BUY" with the obvious point that no one can buy the F-22 besides the U.S.A.F. Even JAPAN was turned down and they could have afforded it with a buy large enough to have allowed a larger U.S. purchase.
Since the TYPHOON is still unproven in the fighter role, I think it is an arguable claim.
GOLDEN