Yeah you are right its kinda unrealistic to picture a joined venture between the 2 companies still it would boost the EU aircraft development sector alot agree?
Personally, I would have to say, "No." My reason for saying that is prior to France/Dassault starting the Rafale programme, they were contributors to what became the Typhoon. The fact that they backed out of the programme makes me think that if they had not backed out, the Typhoon programme would have ended up with a later in-service date than it did, and there would likely be even more arguments about who was to develop and/or order what, and for how much.
The phrase, "too many cooks spoil the soup, " comes to mind...
My point here in this tread is (besides the offtopic comments i made upon your replies) is that the EF is a world class platform i think we all can agree on that but with the current changes and upcomming upgrades to exsisting models of other big aircraft projects like the jsf what does EF need to do to maintain a comfortable place at the world stage as being one of the leading aircraft manufactures?
I mean today there is so much quality out there and on paper they all look good so short said what ever wishes you have for the right prize its yours when comes to airplanes.
With the current development options and future upgrades that EF offers to their costumers what could they do and what are they likely going to do to make the EF a first option to buying nations? for example if you are looking for a 4.5 gen/5gen MR capable airplane then there are 5 or 6 differend types and names to pick from so the competition is kinda tight i assume.
In other words which road is EF going to take and what future upgrades are they going to offer to make the EF at least come close to being the world most advanced platform?
Just a side note personally i do know zippo about airplanes the little things i do know is from what i read here or what google and magazines do provide so i am really trying to understand things regarding EF and other airplanes as they imo a piece of art and it would be a shame if such a nice and capable aircraft like the EF would end up as being a semi failed project see my point?
As i said before there are a number of aircraft companies out there who all offer a world class and cutting edge package and the big question is does EF and its future developments and upgrade options have what it takes to be as succesfull as other aircraft like for example the F-16 which is still one of the most used aircraft ever.
And what could EF do to make the EF way more atractive to future costumers?
From my perspective, the Typhoon and to a lesser extent the Rafale have both 'missed the plane' as it were. They are advanced combat aircraft, without a doubt. However the platform capabilities, and when they came out, were a bit too late and also a bit too expensive.
In terms of 'too late', the first Typhoons which should be able to perform bombing missions appear to be specially modified RAF Typhoons, and per a
Register article, they are not expected to be available to perform such roles until ~2016, with production multi-role Typhoons available starting ~2018.
Given that the 5th gen F-35 Lightning II should be reaching IOC ~2016 and is intended to be multi-role from the start, if a non-manufacturing country or air arm had the choice, why would they choose a non-LO advanced multi-role aircraft if there was an advanced LO multi-role aircraft available instead?
Even the Rafale, which was intended to be multi-role as opposed to having multi-role capabilities added after aircraft design, is/was a bit too late. When France had the Rafale's make their combat debut in Afghanistan, they initially required Mirage 2000's as well, since the Rafale's were literally just bomb trucks, they were unable to designate targets. That is what the Mirage 2000's were doing, instead of having the Mirage's designate AND bomb targets...
From my perspective, it seems as though the designers for both the Typhoon and Rafale failed to pay attention to (or perhaps ignored) the lessons learned from the air campaigns over Iraq and Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War (1990-1991), or over Kosovo, Serbia and Yugoslavia in Operation Allied Force in 1999. Those air campaigns, as well as later ones over Afghanistan in 2002 or against Iraq in 2003, have shown that apart from conflicts between peer or near-peer level air forces, air superiority/supremacy will be established in the initial stages of a campaign. Once air superiority or supremacy has been established, the air to air capabilities of a particular fighter becomes largely irrelevant, since there would no longer be hostile aircraft left to engage in the air. Also worth noting, much of the way IADS rollbacks are accomplished now is via precision strikes upon C4ISR nodes, and/or eliminating air defence assets (interceptors, SAM or AAA) while they are on the ground with strike aircraft.
This IMO is a particular problem for the Typhoon, since it was designed to be an air superiority fighter, and was not originally intended to be multi-role. Indeed, absent difficult and expensive modifications, Tranche I Typhoons are only useful for air interceptor and superiority missions, not strike or air to ground roles. Eurofighter has realized the oversight (or perhaps lack of flexibility in re-designing) is is aiming to correct that with a multi-role Tranche 3 Typhoon, but AFAIK that is not expected to be available until ~2018...
Now onto the costs side of the Typhoon. Figures from
Telegraph article from 2006 (yes, a bit dated I know...) suggest that the RAF order for 232 Typhoons was projected to reach £20 bil. or £66.7 mil. per aircraft. A more recent quote from a
Register article earlier this year has the RAF programme cost expected to top £23 bil. including "planned upgrades". By my calculations, that works out to a little over £99 mil. per aircraft, or ~ USD$159 mil. per aircraft at current exchange rates, which is a higher per aircraft cost than that of the very expensive USAF F-22 Raptor programme. In short, while the Typhoon is a capable fighter, it is a very expensive one, more so than peer-level fighters like the ~USD$ 55 mil. per aircraft for the F/A-18 Super Hornet and also more than high-end estimates of the F-35 per aircraft price.
Apart from a possible deal with India involving ToT, or sales of second hand Typhoons (the RAF plans on retiring all Tranche 1 Typhoons by ~2019, some of which entered RAF servicein 2009...) I just do not see much of a future for the Typhoon. There are other aircraft already in widespread service which cost less and are already capable of performing roles which are pending development for the Typhoon, and then there are more advanced aircraft expected to enter service around the same time that the Typhoon becomes fully developed.
Had the Typhoon come out a decade early, and/or did not require further development to make it multi-role things might be different. Especially if the aircraft was not so expensive.
-Cheers
) 
