just some humour although real facts…

Britsh GDP include estimated revenues from prostitution and narcotics…

Nuke capable aircrafts are more or less protected vs Emp.

Errr Hops http://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/rafale-la-dga-commande-9-pods-de-designation-de-cibles-thales

As we have a former JTAC on the forum, it would be interesting to hear his opinion on the ordnance and platforms used for CAS. As we also have statistics from the last 12 years of conflict to research, it is interesting to see sorties by platform and total ordnance dropped in Afghanistan and Iraq (hint: the A-10 is not in the top three).

Sry won’t interfere 😉

Obviously the available space for a larger radar was more important. (?)

Not really, retactable probe was in the initial project, and Navy is also responsible for the small nose …. !)

To answer Loke question while still trying to not reply to you 😀 , not that I have as much arrested idea as you seem, but it is not in my intention to bother anyone…

What we know
– FLIR: removed from most of the late aircraft. Replaced by a decoy or, some says, an aerodynamic shape.
– TV sensor still in place
– Radar upgraded with a GaN AESA with same interface
– IR search and track is now the apanage of the Mica’s sensor
– Spectra unchanged and/or coherent upgrade

What we may conclude:
– RADAR sensitivity is increased (GaN) but interface is the same. Shared Signal for the fusion has hence the lower grade as standard (just like an 8 bits circuit inside a 64 bits computer). What it means, is that the increased radar capacity is not used for the FUSION (you can’t discretize in a realtime a signal at a higher quality that you share it – it’s a loss of computing time and power). Most probably, given the Spectra high sensitivity antennae, it was never meant to be.
– idem for the IR signal. A wing mounted missile can’t have the same sensor sensitivity than a dedicated unit dimensioned for the airframe (function of power/voltage and cooling capacity)
– SPECTRA is unchanged and keep being linked with the TV sensors. This info makes for what is the coherence of the concept. We can even guess that a defensive approach was privileged.

More can be said but essentially, this is it.

Spectra has been updated and will have GaN based antennaes for F3R.
Talios pod will have an air2air traking capability.
IR sensor out of FSO-IT, right. But remember FSO is a kit added to the plane for a mission aka they are perfectly exchangeable in about 30 mins.
TV sensor was largely upgraded on FSO IT (visual id possible at 50 Kms in good weather conditions. BTW it is working in very close IR despite its name.
You forgot DDM-NG
RBE2 AESA will not get GaN moduleson F3-R. Thalès isworking on multipanelization of the radar and, for further view on “bricks” technology instead of modules (and with different materials but GaN)
etc. etc.
Sad post. (and we are on F-35 topic btw).

for any normal aircraft , changing mission profiles from hi-lo-hi alone already cut range by nearly haft

in Picard example : the mission profile changed from hi-hi-hi to lo-lo-lo , then the aircraft need to carry 6 more 500 lbs bomb ( alot more drag) ,he also changed the fuel tank fromm 600 gallons to 380 gallons ( alot less fuel )
If Rafale follows physics like others aircraft then it would be lucky to have combat radius of 300 km in such configuration
‘
Yawn …..
The example he gave you are by no mean the only mistakes (or BS) made by Picard , you can find dozens more ( about both Rafale and F-35) in the same post he written if you want to look for it , the problem with any number or claims made by Picard is not just they are wrong ,but they shows that he dont understand what he talking about even at basic level and that he keep pull numbers out of thin air , everyone can be wrong but if your claims are constanly being wrong and at a ridiculous level then all your credibility will go out of window.

Except your tb iq decade outdated. Magic missile? 1700 L droptanks? Are yu kidding?