Does that mean Typhoon would be judged useful because UK (NATO member), Germany (NATO member), Italy (NATO member), Spain (NATO member) all use the same equipment? If so, perhaps the USA ought to be ordering a few so that it can a high level of integration with NATO members using Typhoon.

No, it’s because Tornado is an high end strike plane, european equivalent of F-111 and Su-24 so its is naturally fitted to carry out nuclear strikes.
Now you can keep itr still some years but at a certain point you have to substitute it nevertheless.

By the way, it’s general truce with hard and convincing facts that this would hold.

Tonight also moderates won in Iran election, reaffirming trend on which many had bet on acrobatically.

What a good job achieved by teams gathered around Kerry and Lavrov.
If this will stand, it would mark the beginning of the end for the foreign politics as led by the Eu (it is already with the Brexit and before that the cacophony of the Grexit). Europe will stand as an economical power of course but dwarfed on the geopolitical screen.
Her last chance is its commitment in Asia. And let’s say that the initial steps were run on a reciprocal way!

Source:
Reuters.com

A foreign politics led by the EU, what? where? when?
On my opinion we have seen nothing of this about M.E. all those years, just an acritical siding on US positions, positions themselves profoundly wrongsided and influenced by meedling of outside parties having nothing to do with the same american national interest.
Not than a more indipendent politic would have been better, just look at Lybian intervention, started by Sarkhozy activism and its actual results.

A tactical UAV like the ones used by russian and syrian cost much less than that: once it discover something it can call an air strike.
Sukhois take turns , there is always one flying around an operation zone but even in the worst cases they will be there in a matter of minutes.
The main way to designate targets for RuAf, SyAF and even IqAF is not however by using drones but trough the action of armies on terrain.
They force enemy to show themselves, congregate and fight instead of staying hidden and dispersed like in the case of coalition’s drone loitering on an unchallenged occupied territory, even if successful in their search, usually they are not. those drones are not a challenge to them, some minimal loss , some swearing and everything rest the same again.

To sum it up there is not a single type of plane that can sum it up all what is needed for the actual mission, still having both sophisticated planes like Su-34 than reliable workhorses like Mi-24 and Su-25 coupled with an efficent reconnaisance /targeting structure RuAF are actually the best suited and the most succesfull between the ones actually engaged in the Syr/Iq conflict.

is the Reaper low on payload?
I’ve seen plenty of jets flying missions over Libya and Syria with just one or two bombs
granted these usually flew from long distances, but I imagine pound/cost per flight hour the Reaper still beats anything manned, except maybe a B-52

over Syria one could also revert to direct control or using a relay aircraft to control UAVs, avoiding expensive satellite links
those Iranian drones are a good example, I doubt they have satellite links

the other thing is loiter time
unarmed UAVs are great for keeping an eye on the enemy, and manned jet aircraft are great for scooting over and bombing them
but when the enemy launches a sudden assault, or tries to move, there is simply nothing that beats a UAV overhead instantly responding

micro weapons are definitely needed, Hellfire missiles must be the biggest waste of money on ammunition ever. like shooting nukes to kill a fly
they are working on laser guided 70 mm missiles
what does Iran use on its UAVs? is that laser guided or TOW?

Coalition aircraft carry only two bombs because they take off from outside the borders of Iraq and Syria and take hours for reach targets, Russian are in the near and made mission over mission.
Reaper carry much less than a assault chopper or a Super Tucano while cost more than a real fighter.
If you remember well in Kobane there were Reapers and Predators B but the bulk of the bombings were made by B-1B (as they were the only that can loiter at such a distance from the bases).
In the moment you put anything less than symbolic on a actual UAV, bye bye autonomy.
So better make up things in order to have a real aerial support in the lesser possible time.
This obviously in case of a real conflict, not for SF like operations in whic an armed UAV has a sense.

In meantime we have reached page n°100.
felicitation to everyone.

yeah, but I’m not even thinking of stealthy jet powered UAVs yet, I was just thinking heavily armed prop UAVs like the MQ-1 and MQ-9
because over Syria, where their opponents have pretty much no air defences, such aircraft must be a much cheaper way of putting ordnance on target
and more effective too, as they have a much greater time on station

Given the type of conflict I wouldn’t say that they would be a viable substitute, even the Reaper has a very little payload: good for hunting terrorist leaders in Af/pak i.e. something akin as a SF mission, not for a high intensity conflict.
Carrying payload impact their autonomy and they are much slower than any jet plane, so they wouldn’t be able to reach a third party designated objective in time.
Better to use them as an integration not as a substitute of normal airpower limiting their use as a weapon carrier only for their primary intended use and few other thing.

This Su-33 at Zhukovsky had a twin pylon adaptor carrying S-25 heavy rocket pods – so the twin pylon exists – though I’m not sure it can be carried on the intakes……

But with 12 pylons already – why would it need more ???

Ken

To reduce drag by positioning the payload in the best possible position?

Again, it is not extetics is about functionality.
And I consider the blended wing/engine pod configuration of russian planes the best around, also because it allow a potential of development that others (conventional fuselage and canard delta) haven’t.
Still in front of a whole plot of advantages it has naturally some shortcomings.
Fact that on the engine pods you can put just a single hardpoint is just one and not so relevant. I just hope that a small change in the (excellent) landing gear configuration or in the jet engine cover would allow to improve this particular point in future planes.