In the UK, the F35 is categorically not the Tornado replacement, the Typhoon is. Tornado unique capabilities were RAPTOR pod (not being directly replaced),PWIV (Typhoon), Brimstone (Typhoon), Stormshadow (Typhoon) .

The F35 is not the obvious Tornado replacement if you like your Typhoons.

Well you could argue the Tornado was the interim replacement for the Harrier force. It actually replaced Harriers in Afghanistan. So it’s like Harrier > Tornado > F-35.

The main thing is though this 1:1 replacement is not how it works. Some Tornado missions will be handled by EFs in the future, some by F-35s. Just like some Jaguar missions have been taken over by Harriers, others by Tornados etc. What matters is how many combat coded squadrons/jets are actually available.

And in Italy of course, F-35 is replacing the Tornado more on a 1:1 basis. Later, when ECR Tornados will retire, their mission most likely will go to the F-35 fleet too, possibly with AARGM-ER.

Where do you think the pilot is sitting?
This is more like it:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]255393[/ATTACH]

If there will be a new aircraft it has to cover serveral missions: CAS, SEAD, interdiction, recce, strike and nuclear deterrence.

Typhoon is earmarked for the CAS/interdiction part with GBU-54/B, GBU-48 and the already hinted purchase of Brimstone. There were some very basic loadout tests with Taurus, but the aircraft isn’t an ideal platform for large and heavy weapons. More Typhoons are unlikely.

The last Luftwaffe Typhoon will be completed next year, no? T3B is dead. Meaning without new export deals, the German final assembly line will close soon. I’d expect any decision re Tornado replacement to be announced after that date so if anyone should demand more homegrown EFs, if can be ruled out as too expensive.
Since EFs are not nuclear capable, another jet would be required even if some of the Tornados would be replaced by Tyhoons. Makes more sense in that case to have a larger second fleet rather than only around 30 jets for a nuclear strike wing. Such a purchase would come under heavy attack from various sides. Much better if you can say it’s mainly for recce and SEAD.

Re Germany, the F-35 is supposed to replace the Tornado. RAF will retire their Tornado fleet in 2019, AMI by 2025 or so? Anyway, after that, GAF would be the only Tornado user in Europe, maybe overall. They have scrapped all jets except the 85 they’re still flying, so no extra spares or attrition replacements available. While it may be possible to keep them flying until 2035 or so, purely from an airframe hours perspective, it will become increasingly difficult and expensive to maintain them. Combat effectiveness is another matter of course. So it would make a lot of sense to go for F-35 as a Tornado replacement, or develop a new jet sooner, but that’s unrealistic. Plus any delays in the future european fighter program would mean they’re in deep sh!t. Tornado 2040, I don’t see it.
Typhoon IOC was in 2005, so in 2035-2040, they will have been in service for 30-35 years. About the same for the Rafale. That’s already a long time.

MiG-38

[ATTACH=CONFIG]255117[/ATTACH]

There are different Antonov entities if I understand that correctly. Not sure what the Ukranian gov. is liquidating, but Antonov incl. Antonov Airlines (that’s antonov.com) and Kiev/Kharkiv plants will remain. That’s what’s part of Ukroboronprom. Or something like that.

Taking account the history of Austria’s procurement of the Typhoon, I’d take any Austrian costings with a bucketful of salt. Austria got a 15% cut in the purchase price of its Typhoons by cutting numbers by 20% & leaving off a lot of standard equipment. This was treated as a huge triumph by the Austrian minister of defence. He’d saved 15% & it only degraded his country’s air defence abilities by a third! What tremendous value for money!

It’s political, by politicians who have spent 15 years rubbishing Typhoon, & have a vested interest in exaggerating its costs & downplaying the cost of anything else. They have a lot of political capital invested in the story that Typhoon is an overpriced disaster area. For example, they complain that it lacks essential equipment – i.e. the things that Austria had removed, although they’re standard equipment on all other Typhoons.

Politicians built up cases against a particular product for political reasons, & that makes that product permanently tainted for them & their political allies. Facts become irrelevant to the discussion.

No arguing there. Also it shouldn’t be a surprise that the most expensive option (to buy) actually turns out to be the most expensive option (to run). But still, the amount Austria pays per year for its Typhoon fleet is not made up, and there are cheaper options.

That said, I think Austria should have bought Gripen (good enough & cheaper to buy & fly) – but that doesn’t make the ******** said by their politicians right.

Probably, but Saab thought they had it in the bag and overpriced. After having chosen Typhoon, the best option would have been if the socialist party just moved on and the air force got proper funding. Instead they went on to make the stupidest deal possible and the anti EF propaganda continued.