Against most modern fighters Eurofighters would totally dominate the air warfare. Rafale is a damn good plane no doubt, but it wouldn't be dominating the airspace. Rafale would have a tough time against the latest block of UAE F-16E/Fs (with AGP-80) or even Chinese Sukhois. Rafale is a VERY EXPENSIVE plane that does not give any massive advantage to justify its enormously exorbitant cost.
The Rafale is said to be supercruise capable-the French navy certified there M variant as capable of doing so with four Mica missiles and a centreline tank. Now that figure would be lower than the Eurofighter, but it highlights the narrow gap. And anyway, neither would supercruise with a meaningful strike or even full air superiority complement capability.
Again radar range is not everything-the RBE-2, in its current PESA variant is said to have more flexible air to ground modes, superior scan volumes and multi-target tracking as well as lower probability of interception capabilities as far as material that comes on various military forums go.
Is the Rafale expensive-so is the Eurofighter? Not only is the latter more expensive, but it’s future upgrades are far less assured since the four consortium members have shown little inclination to do anything about it. The Eurofighter’s AESA radar has only flown on a test rig and the less said about integration of strike munitions, the better. The only thing that the EF has is lots of PR about its agility. The Rafale at least has two assured upgrade paths for which the French will have to bear a good chunk of the costs for the simple reason its their only fighter.
I hark back to what I’ve thought about this deal for about the past two years or so. We need to look at the MMRCA from the perspective of where it fits into the IAF; If you are getting the PAK FA, the Eurofighter’s air to air capability becomes redundant. However what the IAF currently lacks and will lack is a truly multirole mudmover with good kinematics-something which the F-16 was originally kitted out to be. The Jaguar, Mig-27 and even the upgraded the Mig-29s are all one-dimensional jets. The Mirage-2000s are low on range and the SU-30’s strike capability is limited by its huge size and the age of Russian air to ground munitions (unlike the more versatile F-15E). That’s where the Rafale would come in. Not to mention strategic benefits which the French are more likely to offer (nuclear/missile/space).
The last thing I’d suspect is the Carla Bruni connection!! For one Silvio Berlusconi who was around till about a year ago could have activated his own connections and it would have been politically suicidal even in the treachorous world of Indian politics. All that being said, I would have been perfectly happy with the Typhoon as well but only from an basic operational view.
The choice of the Rafale was the best choice for India considering what the nation wanted (more on that later), and it should also be noted that not only was it the L1 of the two airplanes, but that it was also the preferred choice by the Indian Airforce.
Before I go into why the Rafale was a better choice for India than the Typhoon, please also consider all the competitions where the Rafale has been pitted against the Eurofighter Typhoon. There is India (where the Rafale won). There is Switzerland where the Rafale scored the highest in technical parameters against the Gripen, the F-18E/F, and (yes) the Eurofighter Typhoon (the Gripen won due to cost, but the Swiss airforce rated the Rafale the best – there was a post I made a couple of months ago when the decision was made where I linked that analysis). Also please look at which aircraft won the Singapore and the South Korea decisions - when it comes to technical evaluation – between the Rafale and the Eurofighter (both losing out to the F-15SG and F-15K respectively due to political and other reasons).