Kev2go

Their F35 isn't an RAF replacement for Tornados. It is going to fill the role of now retired Harriers. The F35B is the only real option due to VTOL/STOL needed for operating off the new Queen Elizabeth class carriers. That said regardless of variant, the F35 is a totally next generation aircraft with vastly better sensor suite and low observable technology than either the SH or EF, offering a game changing advantage, whereas the Super hornet is a sidegrade to the EF. Besides UK was partner nation to the JSF program. They were already looking for such a capability long ago. It would be a wasted investment if they didn't especially considering the better pricing for partner nations.

whatever it is what it is. IF they want to waste taxpayer money to have capability now ( production and deliveries also take time so it won't be ASAP anyways) and spend additional money for totally new air-frame vs integrating additional weapons if needed into already existing aircraft platform its their business. operating EF and SH side by side makes about as much sense if the USAF had F16 and Legacy Hornet. Also thats not the best comparison. in the 70s those days it was quite different, where "multirole" capabilities and any capabilities expansions were much more limited by the analog nature of older aircraft generations. Times have changed. Luckily even British MOD has finally realized this.

THe EF is sead capable. the Brits had SEAD capability having the Alarm missile integrated, and considering its retirement, it would have made more sense to just integrate Agm88's in turn in lieu ofAlarm for the EF. Really they should have just done the sensible thing what the brits did with their tornado replacement. More EF's, with the exception of Growlers only as an ECR interim solution/ nuke capability due to thier unique requirement. Its not just the cost of an air frame, but the cost of having different pilot training , ground crew, and logistics for spare parts for 3 different air frames now. ( although two of them are similar) for a job that 1 multi-role aircraft should be able to do.

So because its such a recent addition its probably not feasible to expect the meteor for the typhoon in DCS.

Maybe because they have the team split between the Hornet and others?

sure i get it but that's fixing making fixes, and finishing navigational aspects not dependent on making IR mavericks work. Its pretty likely that the programmer working on weapons may be a different person working on navigation or non combat related avionics.

seems like the Super Hornet isnt even capable of using the B61. ( it was a legacy hornet feature) https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/10/04/boeings-f-18-may-have-a-leg-up-in-germany-over-eurofighter/ https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32768/nukes-drive-germanys-plan-to-replace-tornados-with-typhoons-super-hornets-and-growlers So outside of the EA18G as an interim until ECR, the F/A18E/F otherwise really looks like a waste of money to operate alongside EF Fleet.

Common be realistic here. In the most optimistic scenario if we a see a gripen iit would probably be A/C version at best not the E which only 5 production level aircraft have taken flight thus far. We still don't know the official statement from devs of what EF version we are getting, but id bet money it certainly isn't latest and greatest EF model. Judging by 3d model ( even if WIP) , is almost certainly a Tranche 1, which for all intents and purposes was not out of the realm of possibility to begin with, at least not since VEAO said they could do one.

Tranche 2 block 8 nope, but block 10 yes.

thats reassuring to know, So even if we got a pre block 5 a2a version only it should still beexpected to have IRIS-T.

and this is why you always plant a couple SAM's to defend your home airfield. Just in case you "forget" about any AI assets in case they decide to follow you back to home. so situation like these never happen.

Just to clarify Luftwaffe were already using IRST ( missile) by the time of Tranche 1 block 5? Since the Uk version already had thier own contemporary : Aim132's by then.

AS long as it has LGB , Litening TGP, IRIST ( the missile ) and/ or AIm132 ( if RAF version also come about), Il be more than happy. Not sure if RAF only had precision A/G that early on or if Luftwaffe version also had A/G capability with block 5.

Only if it wasn't coming to DCS.....

Seems Wiki is wrong on this one. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4261104&postcount=9 I think its safe to say we can take his word on it. Even doing my own digging, i have found some publications myself from 2005 ( which is pre block 5) there is already AIm120 references. Someone also made a thread of EF features https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=267730

Honestly the idea of "one aircraft has a label of CAS, and the other is multi-role and therefore it must be assumed the one with the CAS label must be assumed to be better than multirole " is malarkey. Certainly in this case when comparing Harrier to Hornet. The only advantage the harrier has in CAS to the F/A18 is that it can deploy from an LHA or a FOB with a helipad or small landing strip thus being potentially closer to the front lines , however in situations its limited landing/takeoff space requires smaller fuel quantity, and a minimal bomb load. So such a harrier will have very limited station time unless it hits the tankers and not much payload to support troops on the ground. Otherwise, it doesn't possess any advantages in cas when the Hornet can use the same weapons (and then some). The harriers fuel consumption is still pretty high for a subsonic jet and on max internal fuel you only get 7,700 lbs of fuel. You wont be VTOl with max internal fuel, and external stores, let alone with external fuel tanks strapped in. IN comparison with 1 bag of external fuel a Hornet driver can still take a cheek TGP, and take 8 bombs and stay aloft longer than a harrier can ( if you need the range. If you dont, then drop the bag and thats 2 extra bombs). The harrier can only exceed the Hornets payload if its has the necessary length for a conventional take off ( and thats only with conventional bombs). ANd then it handles very sluggishly. NOt that it matters in DCS but IRL the harrier is also more expensive per hour of flight than the Hornet. Really the Harriers a unique due to VTOL/STOL capability but that is a novelty feature to proclaim it better at CAS to the Hornet. What is really necessary to really stand out for CAS are what the A10 has. Long loiter time, and a large payload. The large degree of systems redundancy is a cherry on top. Depending on who you ask in the USMC, some think the harrier was a mistake. Its expensive, It more dangerous to fly, its impractical, and it combat range/loiter time is even worse than the Hornet's. Luckily a mistake that can be rectified today with the F35B which also is a multi-role fighter, and not a novelty subsonic attack jet.

do they? I mean even in the WIP photos we see a luftwaffe skin EF carrying some Aim120. The Germans were already using AIm120's with their F-4F ICE's.

you dont need a TGP to independently sling IR mavericks. The hornet got mavericks before it got a TGP.

well its hard to say which tranche and block will be give, but tranche block 5 was already operational and flying ADF missions in nato starting in 2007 and by 2008 the UK declared initial A/G capability for the block 5. Germans began an retrofit program to being up earlier blocks to tranche 5 standards. Not sure when thiers went operational. http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/79011/eurofighter-wins-type-acceptance-for-block-5-standard.html https://defense-update.com/20090801_typhoon-eurofighter.html

:D

Memes ahoy

and whats so uneasy about the missile alone? they can decide to choose their own way to integrate the missile. IN a digital era it really is not hard to make a munition compatible as long as pylon is the same MIL standard of serial data bus, and then if nessary designing your own software interface for a particular weapon mode. The EF already can use us missiles like Aim9 and Aim120. they also have MIDS/Link 16 which is a US designed datalink pushed to be NATO standard. They already accepted those into operation. I get nukes are more touchy, Why is B61 so important? lobbing tactical nukes is kinda of redundant in era of guided standoff munitions, and especially with intercontinental ballistic missiles. Its not easy to penetrate modern air defenses without stealth. trying toss lob a nuke requires flying nearly right on top of your intended target. Canada for eg is part of NATO but has decided to scrap any nuclear arsenal. With guided long range missiles and USA alone in nato having enough nukes to destroy earth 10 times over, on top off all that > it doesn't seem necessary. IS it really necessary to have a additional personal nuclear stockpile for national interests as long as your a NATO member?

F104 aint the best comparison as that is a much older aircraft design, and from a timeframe where avionics were analog. Back in those days you practically needed to have 2 separate A2A and A2G aircraft to be good at both roles BY todays standards it an old way of doing things, and certainly not efficient on more modest military budgets.

But the ECR is a 2 seater SEAD dedicated variant of EF. (its probably thier idea of a Growler). Its focus is not nuclear strike i dont see why as an interim they cant made a a deal with USA to sell them some AGM88's and integrate those in for some form of SEAD capability for the single seat. ( since UK no longer produces ALARM and the MOD in thier infinite wisdom decided to scrap them from inventory) If the older legacy platforms like F16 and Hornet have been able to do it all, why can't the EF being expanded on for additional versatility? Especially for nations with smaller defense budget.