One thing: doesn’t consider at all my reply to Vnomad as smearing the F-15E.
I consider it an excellent plane and I also absolutely like it, above all for the introduction of the concept of the CFT with integrated bomb rack.
Other CFT introduced or of future introduction (see Typhoon) are IMHO much less convincing/clean concept.

I consider it a strike plane not a multirole, in my own value list this mean that like F-111, is an higher class plane, that have to be used in its primary role only (and be escorted, like it always happen in USAF use) instead to escort others or operate in air defence roles.
Show me someone that intend to use it in this role and I will show you an air force with a serious issue in programming its battle line.

In USAF it was introduced as an exclusive substitute for the F-111, hence the (relatively) low numbers they have acquired.
Tornado has instead taken the place of a whole plethora of planes in the air forces of the countries that they have developed it, hence why more than 800 of them produced.
At a certain point we as europeans stopped to produce them and began instead to acquire Typhoon to renovate our respective A2A lines and now we (as Italians there) and the Uk will acquire the F-35 to renew our A2G line.
Germany has chosen not to take this road, I suspect more for a scarce interest to get involved in mission abroad that for a deliberate technical choice.

That is however our choices, our operative doctrines and our way to proceed.
Other air forces have different ideas?
Let them do what they think better for themselves and be our guest.

So in our own point of view the Tornado has more than honorably fulfilled its intended role and has matched, with just some shortcomings, about all the ambitious and wide mission range we had developed it for. And still honorably kick jihadi asses.
Typhoon own development and outcome was much worst on that point of view.

Said so

@tomcatVIP and @Vnomad
Guided weapon is a thing PGM as the sole form of air dropped weapon (almost when it came to Nato ) is just another, even in the first gulf war i.e. more than ten years after Tornado introduction all the coalition partners used mainly free fall bombs.
Jdams were introduced in 1997 so it was 18 years after that the shift passed from very low range penetration to high quote drop in order to avoid Manpads, AAA and Shorar missiles.
Also for the term Multirole we have to made a distinction there between the nomenclature and the real capabilities, the Vietnam war has seen the use of a whole range of attack aircrafts, starting by the prop engined A-1 to the F-111 passing trough all century series in all the A- USN planes.
And if someone cite the F-105 as the example of a multirole plane then my Granpa can be classified as an helicopter as we use to say there.
Tornado itself is classified as a MRCA multirole combat plane but at difference of the Thud it almost partially delivered it, given that he has taken the role of a whole plethora of different types of Attack planes and/or specialized planes like as an example the RF- versions of the Phantom that were in service in our own airforces at the time (and also in this we did’t fall for it completely as the successive introduction of the AMX would prove).
Putting a label of multirole on a plane doesn’t mean that it can cover all the possible roles with the same efficacy of a specialized plane.

Now , there are two person with the same name in the thread?
Is the one that have posted this:

In some ways, I think the debate is skewed by the nature of the aircraft itself. The Tornado has always been an anachronism. A non-multirole aircraft in a multirole era. A low-level strike optimized design, in the PGM era.

The considerations that went into the Tornado should not apply to its successor. For a fighter expected to be in service for over 40 years, the requirements should beyond whether it can carry a particular missile (not that there’s any problem in equipping the F-35A with the Taurus – should also interest the Koreans & Spanish).

The same that have posted that?

In any case, the point wasn’t about what the design requirements of the Tornado should have been, its about what was finally delivered and its relevance to the modern battlefield. The so-called ‘Tornado-role’ hasn’t existed for a very long time. Most mid-to-large sized fighter jets should be able to perform the full gamut of combat operations from air superiority & strike to SEAD & ALCM-delivery.

Because they are quite self contradictory one with another: one thing is to say that a plane was an anacronism from the beginning, another that it has aged quite fast (but not so much as it, like also the Su-24M are still making an hell of a good work in Syria and Iraq atm) given the advance in technology in the mean time, something I think we can instead all agree.

Seems me that we have lost the track there, what was a civil discussion about the objective limit that the MiG-29 in his baseline configuration had is became a sort of chauvinistic showdown with no reason at all.
So, let me just remember two or three things:

First: the fact that the MiG-29 was not considered as a cost efficient solution when compared to the Su-27 is something that the same Russian engineer and military planner has candidly admitted, so there is not need to be more monarchist than the king himself about that.
This obviouly in the catastrophic situation of the nineties n which the number of planes had to be strinked and nor expanded

Second, if a comparison between F-16 and the Mig-29 have to be made(they are instead apples and oranges IMHO), let’s do it between comparable blocks please, so F-16A/B against MiG-29A, Block 30/32 against C (9.13) and block 50/52 against M (9.15).
Let’s say that trying so to diminish the Mig-29A affirming that it has a radar comparable to the one of F-16ADF is actually making a big, big complement to the ADF i.e. the only A/B variant that could launch a radar guided missile and not just sidewinders.

Third: the Su-27 although having been preferred to the MiG-29 in Rissian Air force has won very few export contracts, the best-seller being instead the Su-30, and in a version deeply different to the meagre 30 ones that has been acquired by Su/Russia itself before this decade.

So, in the end the different destines of those planes had more to do with the exceptional event of the fall of Soviet Union that to the supposed technical or operational shortcoming of any of them.

@ Haavarla
Great thing, the translation really helps with understanding things like tactics, capabilities of the various planes involved and generally the mindset they have in conducting their missions, all things you can’t get just watching a video.
The first part of the video, centered about the Su-25 is, if possible even more interesting, following the mission step by step.

Levsha, instead of making showing of your usual chauvinistic attitude, please just go to you tube and wander around, you would found in five minutes dozens of flicks of Su-35 carring bombs together with air to air armament. Or also use the corrisponding thread on this forum, there are lots of pictures of them also.
Every plane at Latakia airbase take part to strike mission, even the latest arrived Su-27SM3.

F-35 has completed the IOC in 2015 for the -B and in 2016 for the A version and is entered service on both USMC and Usaf just a few time after passing such a milestone.
Still they are doing just training and partecipating in tactical exercise while no one has been used operatively.
Let’s add that having not passed the ot&t they are still in LRIP i.e. a phase that in the soviet/ russian practise didn’t even exist.

Entering service for them imply that the plane has reached a status equivalent to the western FOC i.e. something the F-35 has still a long way to go.

Su-35 would have reached the status this years but their operative use in Syria has showed some glitch in the sealing of the intakes during take off, so design has notbeen freezed and the team working on it at the Sukhoi design bureau has been tasked to fix the problem before being disbanded.

So did you say that French trust more Koreans than us?
Because you know, this constatation has made even our usually prudent or better say timid governement rabid with rage, let’s image us people in the street that already start from the default position fo considering French the most unbearable people of the whole universe and beyond…

Said so, Italy have acquired F-35A as a direct replacement of Tornado so mmrmalaya reasonement just doesn’t stand.
In any case we will still carry Storm Shadow on Typhoons and would keep the Tornado SEAD in service so to use the AARGM we have developed together with USN.
So there are several way to skin a cat, it depend from what are your own requirement and operational doctrines.

Not russian but VERY interesting the same:

Operators are credited to be Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada (KSS) members, an Iraqi militia operating in Syria, operating a Shaed-129.

I think is one of the few videos in which you can see drone operators in the middle of real action.

The weapons used are clearly optical guided and of a quite great explosive power also.