(Pauses from building large wooden badger)
RVL does not sound like a good idea, but then - as you say - buying an aircraft with no bring-back margin out of the box isn't exactly smart either.
Can't imagine why they would drop the external tanks, except they are limited in their use and it's one more thing you don't have to pay for. I don't think that anyone has fitted either the -22 or the -35 so that the tanks can be dropped and LO is maintained, so they are only of use for ferry. OK, the JSF could use them in a second-day, non-LO mission with added external stores - but then you just wiped out two-thirds of your external stores and have only two useful stations left.
WEBF - Are you really going to see an LO aircraft used primarily in austere Harrier-type operations? If you're going to do that you'd be better off with a simpler "Harrier III" with no supersonic, no pretence at LO (which you won't have with more than 2x bombs and 2x AMRAAM anyway) and the Harrier issues fixed.
Ah yes, the Viking ISAR pod. Norden's last and finest....
ORAC - The Rafale should have decent performance as long as they can launch at their design max weight. If they can't do that off the CdG they have effbombed up somehow.
I'm told the F-18E has decent off-load with wall-to-wall tanks. In fact the Navy decided long ago that the SuperBug was their baby, albeit uglier than they were promised, and have decided to love it. Of course the Block 1 Es (particularly the first few lots that can't have AESA) are limited compared to the later aircraft, so CAP and tanker will be their mission.
(Hammering and sawing resume.)