Read the forum code of contact. That's not 'traditionally' true. Nor is it clear that whether Rafale flew 'red', and, to be fair, whether it suffered losses while doing so. I think that Rafale has an edge in some areas, WVR, if its pilots can force Typhoon to fight on their terms. That's the case with almost any pair of dissimilar fighters you can think of.
I don't think that EF GmbH's lack of response indicates that Colonel Grandclaudon was necessarily being entirely accurate, or wholly truthful, however tempting it may be for a Rafale fan to believe what he said. The RAF are notoriously unwilling to comment on the results of training exercises eg the F DACT at Coningsby and are always keen to avoid getting into unseemly 'pis. You certainly cannot conclude from the lack of response that the only logical explanation is the one put forth by Lt.
As Nicholas 10 was gracious enough to accept. Yes, it did. As a journalist I know how often people look you in the eye and tell outright lies at such events. Merely being misleading, or not telling the whole truth is entirely routine. I'm not going to be rude and suggest that such a conclusion is 'dumb' but I would suggest that it's premature on the basis of the evidence so far.
The professionals who determine procurement decisions will already know exactly what happened. Rafale's performance at ATLC will not swing any extra sales. That said, I must say that I hope that Rafale soon gains an export order, as I believe that it's essential for Europe that Dassault survives as a centre of manned combat aircraft design and production excellence. Arthuro, I fully agree with you that a single person asking both sides would probabley be most interesting, particularly if you can ask the other side about things you heared from the first.
Even better if you have two people doing so on the opposite sides and then get their interviews being published. A pitty that the probability of that happening is quite low.
