The CSP did not include mid-course correction for the AMRAAMs due to technical difficulties. So they wouldn’t be much better than superTEMPs as you would have to rely on the missile’s active seeker (won’t be shocked if GJN forces us to use a Tornado with gimped AMRAAMs tbh). In the 2000s there was the AMRAAM optimisation programme to fix this. Then there was the F3 sustainment program after that.
Official publications aren’t immune from mistakes. Him pulling 40 units of AoA would be pulling more alpha than a delta wing, surely that doesn’t make sense?
He was talking about departure testing and says the Tornado would typically depart at 28 ADD, but on one occasion they managed to reach 40 ADD without departing.
Its likely those updates where compatibility updates for the new weapon systems (AMRAAM/ASRAAM, mid course correction, C5 AMRAAM etc) rather than performance updates (or updates that could be useful ingame) sorry should’ve been clearer when I said it wasn’t upgraded.
I’ve often seen the list below as a list of radar upgrades;
What I’m inferring is that the CSP/AOP/FSP didn’t change the radar designation. And any changes where compatibility/serviceability changes.
So since the Stage-2G was used in the “CSP” upgrade our in game Stage-2G is good enough for firing AMRAAM.
It certainly is the exception. The reason I posted it was because at the time there was tak of 1 unit = 2°. In that case 40 units AoA would mean the Tornado was flying along with the nose nearly vertical, which is obviously unrealistic.
The AoA limit in the manual varies from 15 units to “no limits” depending on wing sweep, speed, and whether SPILs is on. 21 - 23 units is generally the upper limit though.
I think that’s a pretty wild assumption to make just because one paragraph doesn’t specifically mention improvements to the Radar performance. The UK parliament source I linked suggests the opposite.
Good enough to fire them in pitbull mode*. No mid-flight guidance would make it pretty weak, especially considering what BR it will be at if it gets AMRAAMs/ASRAAMs.
It wouldn’t shock me - I didn’t think they would introduce the F.3 with an interim radar, but we still had to wait months for the 2G.
On a side note - is there any chance of the GR.1 getting revised payloads? It seems strange that we can put a 1000kg PGM on the wing pylons and not the GBU-24, which is lighter.
Also - I know the GR.1 didn’t use 500lb paveways in real life, as they were introduced to the RAF post GR4 upgrade afaik, but is there any reason to believe they wouldn’t have been backwards compatible? We have fictional yak141s and Japanese F-16s in the game, and the F-4J(UK) is made to use ahistoric sidewinders for balance reasons. Giving the GR.1 lighter precision weapons so we can carry more than four doesn’t seem like a huge ask.
Its something I’ve been meaning to report since the Paveway II’s were added for the wing pylons. The same logic can be used to allow for the Paveway III, I’ll get something done this weekend
Actually the Tornado GR.1 tactics manual does confirm they were used or atleast usable. There is already at report in for this.
I’d have the check the length compared to the Paveway IV but if they are of similar length then Tornado GR.4 photos can be used as a guide for compatibility.
That sounds great specialy since it should be applicable to the italien and german versions as well right?
It is just a shame that loadout options are realy far away in the priority list of things to be added
