# Tornado IDS Family – BR Placement Discussion (Air RB Focus)

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
,
1

This post is a structured comparison of the Tornado IDS variants currently in-game (Germany and Italy), focusing on their BR placement across modes and whether their Air RB rating reflects actual combat effectiveness.

🇩🇪 Germany

Tornado IDS WTD61

  • GRB: 10.0
  • Air RB: 11.3
  • SB: 11.3
  • AB: 11.0

Weapons:

  • Up to 12× Mk.83 bombs
  • Up to 12× Mk.83 Ballute bombs
  • 2× AIM-9L
  • Chaff (1200 max)
  • Flares (56 max)

Air-to-air armament:

  • 2× AIM-9L only

Guided strike capability:

  • None

Tornado IDS ASSTA1

  • GRB: 11.3
  • Air RB: 11.3
  • SB: 11.7
  • AB: 11.7

Weapons:

  • Up to 12× Mk.83 bombs
  • Up to 12× Mk.83 Ballute bombs
  • 2× AIM-9L
  • Chaff (1200 max)
  • Flares (56 max)
  • Up to 4× GBU-16 Paveway II
  • Up to 6× GBU-54B LJDAM
  • 1× GBU-24 Paveway III
  • Litening II targeting pod

Air-to-air armament:

  • 2× AIM-9L only

Guided strike capability:

  • Significant precision strike capability

Tornado IDS SLE

  • GRB: 12.3
  • Air RB: 12.3
  • SB: 12.3
  • AB:12.0

Weapons:

  • Up to 12× Mk.83 bombs
  • Up to 12× Mk.83 Ballute bombs
  • 2× AIM-9L/I-1 (IRCCM)
  • Chaff (1200 max)
  • Flares (56 max)
  • Up to 4× GBU-16 Paveway II
  • Up to 6× GBU-54B LJDAM
  • 1× GBU-24 Paveway III
  • Up to 4× HOSBO guided bombs
  • Up to 9× Brimstone missiles
  • MAW countermeasure system
  • Litening III targeting pod

Air-to-air armament:

  • 2× AIM-9L/I-1 (IRCCM) only

Guided strike capability:

  • Extremely advanced strike package

🇮🇹 Italy

Tornado IDS

  • GRB: 11.3
  • Air RB: 11.3
  • SB: 11.3
  • AB: 11.3

Weapons:

  • Up to 12× Mk.83 bombs
  • Up to 12× Mk.83 Ballute bombs
  • 2× AIM-9L
  • Chaff (1200 max)
  • Flares (56 max)

Air-to-air armament:

  • 2× AIM-9L only

Guided strike capability:

  • None

Tornado IDS (1995)

  • GRB: 11.3
  • Air RB: 11.3
  • SB: 11.3
  • AB: 11.3

Weapons:

  • Up to 12× Mk.83 bombs
  • Up to 12× Mk.83 Ballute bombs
  • 2× AIM-9L
  • Chaff (1200 max)
  • Flares (56 max)
  • Up to 4× GBU-16 Paveway II
  • 1× GBU-24 Paveway III

Air-to-air armament:

  • 2× AIM-9L only

Guided strike capability:

  • Limited precision strike capability

Tornado IDS (Ret.8)

  • GRB: 11.7
  • Air RB: 11.7
  • SB: 11.7
  • AB: 11.7

Weapons:

  • Up to 12× Mk.83 bombs
  • Up to 12× Mk.83 Ballute bombs
  • 2× AIM-9L
  • Chaff (1200 max)
  • Flares (56 max)
  • MAW system
  • GBU-10 Paveway II
  • GBU-12 Paveway II
  • GBU-16 Paveway II
  • GBU-24 Paveway III
  • EGBU-24B Paveway III
  • GBU-31 JDAM
  • GBU-32 JDAM
  • GBU-38 JDAM
  • GBU-39B SDB

Air-to-air armament:

  • 2× AIM-9L only

Guided strike capability:

  • Extensive modern precision strike package

Across all variants:

  • Same airframe family (Tornado IDS)
  • Similar flight performance
  • No radar-guided air-to-air missiles
  • Only 2 short-range IR missiles
  • Designed primarily as strike aircraft

The major differences between variants lie almost entirely in air-to-ground capability and countermeasure/avionics upgrades.

However, Air RB performance is heavily influenced by air-to-air capability, survivability, and engagement flexibility rather than strike loadouts alone.

Do you think the current BR placement of the Tornado IDS family properly reflects their effectiveness in Air RB?

Or is strike capability currently weighted too heavily compared to air-to-air performance?

I would be interested in hearing opinions from players who have extensive experience flying these aircraft in Air RB.

1 Like
2

I think they could get an extra 2 aim-9Ls and stay at the same br since they aren’t that great in air rb

3

No

4

Something is wrong here:

  • GRB: 10.0
  • Air RB: 11.3
  • SB: 11.3
  • AB: 11.0
  • GRB: 11.3
  • Air RB: 11.3
  • SB: 11.7
  • AB: 11.7
  • GRB: 11.3
  • Air RB: 11.7
  • SB: 11.7
  • AB: 11.7

That’s why 1995 variant is just a waste of time, especially because of the shit quality of its thermals.
Imo it could sit at 11.0 in GRB, just like a regular AMX compared to a premium.

5

image
@Morvran

1 Like
6

Anyway

This whole concept goes out of the window with multiroles but let me ask this, if were gonna balance strike aircrafts mainly around their A2A capability, isnt it like balancing air superiority fighters mainly around their A2G capability?

They have different roles, its perfectly fine to have specialised ground strike and specialised air superiority aircrafts at same BR since both specialize in different things.

Its just that
A) current ARB setup doesnt accomodate anything other than fighter (if you want to win that is)
B) multiroles exists (but at least multiroles with same ground strike capability as tornadoes sit at much higher BRs as result)

1 Like
7

Imho guided ground strike capabilities have no significance in Air RB.

All what matters is the a2a capability, evasive capabilities and the bomb loadouts vs. bases. Here are napalm bombs the fotm, cause you need less bomb load than with HE bombs. Means you’re faster.

All Tornados have no fire bombs, unfortnately. So for Air RB all versions could have the same BR. Maybe the top Tornado with MAW can be +0.3. But all others play exactly the same in Air RB and every fighter with two big enough fire bombs is superior @ base striking.

9

11.3 is fine. The issue is expecting a ground attacker to be a fighter.

  1. decompress

  2. actually make the game modes decent for ground attackers

  3. End the diminishing Returns mechanic. Stop punishing an aircraft just because it can take a lot of bombs. It’s naturally mitigated

After that, just finishing the Tornados would be useful too. The FM is half finished, especially in regard to top speed. So giving them combat thrust like the Mig-21Bis has could be all the direct buff the Tonkas need for now.

Though I would also like to see CBUs added at some point and they could be tuned to give the Tonkas a Napalm-esque weapon

On a personal note. I absolutely destroyed an F-5E in a gunfight last night in the GR1, which is the weakest of all the IDSs with the weakest engines. Sure, there is a limit to what you can do, but at 11.3 it’s manageable

The 12.3 ones should be 12.0 though

10

Thank you for correcting me!
The lack of sleep yesterday while writing this post caught me off guard…
I’ll try to do better in the next one, especially when it comes to using the correct battleratings :/

11

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.)

12

I suggest you add this to this:

1 Like
13

@Dontkev-psn

ARDS is a fully digital, high-precision radar-detection sensor that was developed by Raytheon Deutschland GmbH. ARDS is a platform-independent, follow-on development of the digital ELS (Emitter Location System) that is now operational on German Luftwaffe Tornado ECR’s (Electronic Combat / Reconnaissance version).
GA-ASI and Raytheon Deutschland Prove New Digital Sensor | General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc.

So D-ELS is the original ELS, seems it might have been a Texas Instruments unit. And ARDS was the replacement in development, I’ve run out of spare time so will need to keep looking in the evening.

1 Like
14

d31c3a9008a77c2eebbed4325725e8ac4d2be978
d31c3a9008a77c2eebbed4325725e8ac4d2be9781244×940 461 KB

“Digitized ELS PDT 1642 Phase 3” is also on the ongoing list

15

So that would be the D-ELS that Texas Instruments made then.

1 Like
16

2 things:
1: Would this allready be enough?
2: you wanna do the report Internal like for the EF?

@Gunjob