Well, the EF also has a delayed tranche software process. But once tranche 3 takes full flight it can perform those duties quite easily.
Not at all, because the T3A upgrade only adds some more LGBs, while not a single PGM, stand off weapon, ARM, Brimstone ATGM or even Cruise missile will be added, like the initial plans back in the 80/90s said. Infact all we see today with the test flights is PR based on their offer to the Saudis, which might fund the integration of Brimstone and Storm Shadow, next to the Damocles pod and AASM, but the EF partners didn't funded any credible A2G upgrade.
One has to remember the sort of mission the EF was designed to undertake.. Libyan AF or not.. It is an air superiority fighter.
No, it was designed and developed as a multi role fighter, just with higher importance to A2A, just like the F18SH is a multi role fighter which gives more importance to A2G. The problem is only, that the EF can't even provide basic multi role capabilities, once because of the slow upgrade pace of the partners, but mainly because of the design flaws of the fighter.
The LDP on the centreline decision was made because it was decided that most mission profiles did not require three tanks.. which are usually for ferry. Additionally, the usage of the front MRAAM station was an option for the TGP but cancelled in favour of centreline station due to additional tests needed(hence costs) to verify separation of MRAAMs in such a config.
Sorry but that's wrong! The plan was to develop an own LDP, that could be used at the missile stations, but that wasn't technically feasable anymore and most likely financially too, so they chose to fast induct the Litening pod as a compromise, which means it was a necessity, not a choice!
Secondly, it is not the issue if it carries 2 or 3 fuel tanks, but that the centerline station is blocked by a small payload, instead of a heavy weapon like a 2000lb bunker buster, or a 1000l fuel tank. Simple examples:
The Indian M2K in Kargil could had been able to carry 2 wing fuel tanks, a centerline 2000lb LGB and an LDP, if a heavy strike would had been needed. The EF T3A in the same role needs to carry the LDP on the centerline, a single fuel tank on one wing and the LGB on the other. So it not only would fly less ranges as the old M2K, but also would have to handle a disymmetric load config, ONLY because it had to carry on the centerline station!
Another example is the rather light CAS load with Brimstone. We have seen the PR pics with up to 18 x Brimstones, in realitly however the EF needs to carry the Litenting on the centerline to guide the missiles, but that then again means no fuel tank can be carried, so it needs to replace Brimstone missiles from 2 stations that then carries 2 x 1000l fuel tanks, which actually is far too much for such a light load and CAS. Again a result of the LDP issue.
And in all these cases, the 4 x missile stations have no value, other than the fact that it could carry 4 x BVR missiles in any role, but practically it would had been far better if they could be used for LDPs or other weapons. The only way to counter this design flaw is to add CFTs, that however is planned only for the end of the decade, when the partners go for the MLU upgrade and only then they will add cruise missiles or heavy weapons, because only then it will be able to give useful load configs, range and endurance. But with the F35 and the Brits joining the French for a NG fighter, I don't see much hope in the EF future.
Lower RCS may be useful in QRA..
Even in QRA missions, they carry at least a centerline fuel tank, so will the missiles be the factor that increases the RCS or the fuel tank?
