https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/growing-readiness-woes-only-7-in-10-air-force-planes-are-ready-to-fly

This means airmen have to spend more time re-applying the stealth coating on the Raptor, which means less time in the air. The F-35A Lightning II has similar issues with its stealth coating, he said, but not to the same degree as the F-22.

A little bit farther doewn the read:
F-35 rates fell from 67.9 percent in 2015 to 65 percent in 2016.

it’s still 15% higher than the Rafale (in fact more but you’ll certainly do the math for yourself)
The F22 still also having 10% better availibility (idem)

Dutch complete Chinook mission in Mali

The Netherlands’ last of three Boeing CH-47D Chinook transport helicopters deployed in support of the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) will return to Europe in mid-April, with the German army having assumed the role using NH Industries NH90s.

On 23 March, the second Dutch Chinook was returned to Gilze Rijen air base aboard a Boeing C-17 strategic transport of the NATO Strategic Airlift Capability unit. The remaining example will arrive at Woensdrecht air base in mid-April to undergo scheduled maintenance.

The Dutch military says its Defence Helicopter Command’s Chinooks accumulated 2,550 flying hours in support of the MINUSMA mission, performing transport duties and medical evacuation services. The nation’s personnel completed 12 detachments in Mali over a period of two-and-a-half years.

Source:
FlightGlobal.com

True; otoh Rafale F4 will be quite different from the Rafale at that time; and also very important the missiles and targeting pods will also be very different from that time.

That would be a sensible move. It could explain the increased engine power.

DoD weapons designer: Swarming teams of drones will dominate future wars

Source this please- AESA have “near simultaneous modes” in other words interleaving modes. Which U.S. ones did the AdA use? There are several foundries in the US, maybe DGA shouldn’t buy the cheapest ones :). What is the timetable for this physical division because there is nothing, zero information on it other than:
– THALES has this to say on their site –https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/active-electronically-scanned-array-aesa…

In other words, it’s exactly the same as the US AESA only smaller and with an older back end.

Nevermind, I found it http://www.air-cosmos.com/futur-radar-multirole-pour-le-rafale-25687

Goods not as advertised Hallow, it is for the Rafale mid-life update in the late 2020’s-30’s of an advanced AESA that does not yet exist.

It’s an upgrade of an upgrade, a set of path that have been much too common those late years. Bring a marketing thingy that see moderate usage (OP request, Excessive cost, poor reliability or moderate achievements ) and wait for the full capabilities to be release by yet another funded program later. Honestly, what usage have those 32 something AESA? They don’t even call it LRIP when it should be.

Edit: oops, not the Rafale thread. Sorry for the OT.

Tandem rotor MEDEVAC UAV

[ATTACH=CONFIG]252151[/ATTACH]

The DP14 is part of a U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, or USAMRMC, effort to look at alternatives to evacuating casualties in what the Army and Marine Corps calls Multidomain Battlefield, a operational concept designed to prepare the joint force to operate in the domains of land, sea, air, space and cyberspace.

I have a hard time to understand why they use full feathering and flapping hinges on an UAS that size (small). Even Hugues did not have to wait for the composite revolution

[ATTACH=CONFIG]252152[/ATTACH]

Or

Given the type of mission and nap of the earth flying they envision, a rigid rotor tech would be more appropriate. To alleviate gust, prioritize agility and flight precision IGE (think FCS coding time), the articulated rotor have proved its age…

Source:
DefenseTech.org

RAF welcomes updated Chinook HC5

That mark also the re-introduction of the larger tanks equipped Chinook* in RAF service:

Other than resistance to integrating a nuclear weapon on an airframe manufactured by a non NATO member?

Required would be physical and electronic fail safe changes to certify the Gripen airframe for nuclear carriage. Would the Swedes even allow the airframe to be modified this way?

I would also suggest that the cost of these upgrades and certification program for such a small fleet would become expensive. It would likely be cheaper to order and operate an aircraft already certified for nuclear delivery (if this remains an enduring requirement…).

I understand that the Gripen is already hardened for EMP.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]252139[/ATTACH]