Two comments.
Wrt Spectra and RBE-2 : I remember reading, I think it was in the DSI article on future Spectra evolution (the PEA Incas thing) that merging both in a “unified virtual aperture” was contemplated. I didn’t really figure what such a thing could be, but the recent comments here about Spectra EW antennas potentially receiving and processing RBE-2 return waves made my brain go “tilt”.
Wrt to Bluewings’ latest comment on active cancellation, and in view of the recent official announcement by MBDA that they’re indeed using AC for missiles. It’d make sense that way – a missile body and surface probably experience less flexing (and they’re smaller to “hide”). If AC for missiles is possible, I’d expect it to be used on the ASMP-A, by the way.

I never presented it as what the F-35 is doing today, but what the F-35 will do when it goes IOC.

On the programming front, the increase is needed time has a large part to blame on the time it takes to integrate each sub-block as it comes out of programming. That has nothing to do with CATBIRD. I could show you dozens of quotes praising CATBIRD and it’s contribution to the program, but I think you would just call that marketing 😉

If you don’t believe the tactics of the graph above, then how about a real world example? Read up on Package Q (wiki) & here. It contained 56 F-16s, 14 F-15s (escort), 6 F-4s (SEAD), & 2 EF-111s (Jammers). This does not even touch the support assets (IFR, escorts, etc) that were also required. Package Q ended up with only a fraction of the targets being hit, 3 lost F-16s and two pilots captured. In a testament to good leadership, the USAF restricted Baghdad targets to the F-117 (ie decided to use 5th gen tactics) for the remainder of the war.

While Package Q represented an older way of attacking (gravity Mk-84s instead of SDB, LGB & JDAMs), it still shows that 4th gen assets require a much larger support chain (greater IFR, escorts, jamming, SEAD, etc) than 5th gen assets. That cannot be refuted and has been proven in combat. That is the point I am trying to make.

That’s all really nice and I’m not denying F-35’s future planned capabilities (if it keeps political support and funding, naturally, like any system in development). But since this is a Rafale thread, it can be argued – with real world evidence instead of theoretical – that a Rafale strike doesn’t need as much external support as your Package Q example, today.
Of course, Libya’s not the imaginary (but Chinese-smelling…) super-powerful adversary with S-400+ IADS and VLO interceptors that one can see in 5th Gen US plane brochures, but then it’s still a real case.

Oh I don’t know, he had me fooled for like five seconds…

Me too, until I got a look at the date (and then the name of the Dassault “exec” !) 😀

Wake me up when Typhoon has an LDP that doesn’t require losing a wet hardpoint… :diablo:

Well, as far as operational scenarii for such a 14-missile loadout go, I can see attacking Independance Day megasaucers, but outside that… 😎

Anyone know what type of air to ground munitions or aircraft for that matter the French are using. Isn’t the Rafale typically an air superiority fighter?

Also wondering if we may see Marine attack helo’s enter the fray off the Kersage.

The Rafale is an omnirole fighter (Typhoon’s an air superiority fighter). Weapons used could be AASMs, LGBs, even SCALP cruise missiles (but not those for CAS, obviously).

The Areos/RecoNG pod is certainly getting a workout right now.

always curious what the chin structure looks like for Typhoon, nose gear attached to which frame could cause bit of a problem.

To me, the nose gear on the naval Typhoon artist’s impression looks horribly flimsy for a naval aircraft. Sure, thrust vectoring’s supposed to allow smoother landings… but really ? In bad weather, on a moving deck, possibly with battle damage ? Sounds a bit too optimistic. I remember when a Rafale M did an uncontrolled exit from runway and plowed through an earth bank with no damage to the gear (the pilot had ejected though). The nosegear on a Rafale M is massive in comparison to that picture.
Edit : and while I have the Rafale M at the forefront of my memory, I’m pretty sure Hornets and co have similarly sturdy landing gears.