LO,
Yes, I've seen the figures as well, still a bit of a sceptic on French claims - but I might be doing them a mis-service. They are considerable engineers, and I have never underestimated them. I just have a problem balancing the requirements I know JSF had to meet with the stated Rafale load penalty. Might be comparing apples and oranges.
The basic problem is that carrier ops generate loads and load paths that just don't exist in land based designs - you have to put new and extra metal in to cope with them. Nose gear launch loads are a good example. In some cases, you are dealing with quite terrifically large hunks of metal to get the loads around the airframe.
You're being a little hard on LM and the SWAT effort, if I might suggest. There is still a lot of commonality between the variants, it's worth remembering that all three were overweight, not just the B - they all had considerable redesign, and the solutions were, as far as practicable, common. However, you are quite right that some commonality had to be sacrificed. However, it's still a considerable achievement to get CTOL, CV and STOVL aircraft out of one basic configuration.
My guess is that the focus on F-35 will now move to the avionics. Firstly, because they have some big challenges to overcome in software and mission system testing. They'll beat them, but it will be a challenge. Secondly, the focus will shift as people realise just what avionics this aircraft is carrying as a standard fit, and the capabilities it is bringing. Interesting times.
Best Regards as ever to all those actually doing the business, whether in service or those working all hours to deliver the new kit
Engines