Tornado IDS ASSTA1
Suggested BR:
- Air RB: 10.7–11.0
- Ground RB: 10.7–11.0
Air RB reasoning
The current BR does not accurately reflect the aircraft’s combat effectiveness in Air RB.
- The aircraft only carries two AIM-9L missiles, a weapon already available on aircraft at much lower BRs, such as the Harrier.
- Its guided bomb capability has little influence on Air RB matches, as precision bombs rarely determine the outcome of air combat.
- Unlike many competing strike aircraft, it lacks incendiary bombs for efficient base destruction, making bombing less rewarding.
- It is also generally unable to reach bases before dedicated fighters or faster multirole aircraft equipped with incendiary ordnance.
- The Tornado’s poor dogfighting performance and limited air-to-air armament leave it at a significant disadvantage against opponents at its current BR.
- The aircraft’s precision-guided bombs should not justify a higher BR in Air RB, as they contribute little to winning matches compared to speed, survivability, and air-to-air capability.
Overall, the aircraft’s strengths do not compensate for its major weaknesses in Air RB, making a reduction to 10.7 or 11.0 appropriate.
Ground RB reasoning
Although the Tornado IDS ASSTA1 has access to precision-guided bombs, their effectiveness is significantly reduced by the current Ground RB environment.
- Modern SPAAs such as the 2S6 Tunguska, Osa, and Strela can engage aircraft at long distances, forcing the Tornado to remain outside effective attack parameters or risk being destroyed before weapon release.
- In addition, systems such as the Roland 1 and ADATS provide engagement ranges of around 10 km, making stand-off attacks with guided bombs extremely difficult or outright impossible.
- The Tornado’s lack of speed compared to dedicated strike aircraft when entering and leaving the battlefield further increases its vulnerability.
- As a result, the availability of guided bombs does not translate into a level of effectiveness that would justify a significantly higher Battle Rating.
For these reasons, a Ground RB BR of 10.7–11.0 would better represent the aircraft’s actual performance.
Italian Tornado IDS
Suggested BR:
- Air RB: Similar to the ASSTA1 (10.7–11.0)
- Ground RB: 10.0 (current value is appropriate)
The Italian IDS shares nearly identical limitations in Air RB and should therefore receive the same treatment.
Its air-to-air capability is restricted to only two AIM-9Ls, while its guided bombs provide little advantage in Air RB and only limited usefulness in Ground RB due to the prevalence of long-range SPAAs. The recent Ground RB adjustment to 10.0 already better reflects its capabilities and should remain unchanged.
Tornado 1995
Suggested Ground RB: 10.3–10.7
Compared to the ASSTA1, the Tornado 1995 lacks modern GNSS-guided munitions such as the GBU-54 LJDAM.
Without GNSS guidance, the aircraft is forced to rely on laser designation or conventional weapons, reducing its flexibility and making attacks more difficult against moving targets or in contested environments. Considering the effectiveness of modern SPAAs already present at this BR, its overall performance does not justify a higher placement.
A Ground RB BR between 10.3 and 10.7 would therefore better reflect its actual combat potential.
Tornado MLU (RET.8)
Suggested BR: 11.3 (or remain at 11.7)
Although the MLU still only carries AIM-9Ls for air-to-air combat, it benefits from the MAW-equipped BOZ pod, providing significantly improved survivability compared to earlier variants.
This additional defensive capability gives it a meaningful advantage over the other Tornado variants. For that reason, keeping it at 11.7 could be justified, although a reduction to 11.3 would also be reasonable if offensive capability is weighted more heavily than survivability.
Let me know what you think about this. (Yes, I know that using the Harrier without guided bombs was probably not the best example of an AIM-9L carrier.)