Ariane 6 exists so that European countries can get independent access to space between now and s. The launch cost is almost 2x the cost of Falcon 9. Both platforms can lift 22t to LEO. Ariane is one generation behind SpaceX, but that still puts them on second place. All while being independent from the whims of one single individual, ensuring independent launch capabilities for national security reasons. The first doesn't imply the second.
There are also a number of other rockets like RocketLab's Neutron and Relativity's Terran R that seem like they'll outcompete Ariane 6. Two operational, and a bunch of dreams. Right now, Europe has a functioning rocket program under their own control. I think it's understandable for an engineering community to talk about the tech, but people seem to be forgetting the geopolitics. You must have some wild dreams. Starship and New Glenn are basically as dreamy as Ariane 6.
Starship is essentially operational as an expendable launcher already, and NG is starting the paperwork for first launch. Ariane 6 will serve fine as an "assured access to space" for the local market which is important , and good on them for finally getting it off the ground.
But it's design goal was "Falcon 9 competitor" and it certainly isn't. Ariane 6 has flow successfully. New Glenn is missing in action, and Starship still has a long way to go before it is ready to actually put payloads in orbit. Ariane 6 is ahead of both, given it has actually flown and delivered satellites to orbit. Starship oughta be delivering payloads to orbit within 12 months. Europe again has one functioning rocket - after it had 3: - Soyuz from Kourou, which understandably is no longer politically viable now.
Starship has successfully launched more than Ariane 6. The only reason they aren't launching payloads right now is because they want to nail down reuse first. There's less info on New Glenn, but a lot more footage has come out since David Limp took over.
