It's definitely not possible to integrate the conformals across all Typhoon variants. Neither T1 or T2 have the mounting points. I suspect T2 could be retrofitted (at no doubt enormous cost), but T1 apparently is a no-no (but also with an OSD of 2030 why would you bother). From everything I've heard and read the engineering work to make those 2 pylons 'wet' is considerable, so much so that a new wing is required. Hence the reason why new production is preferred to do it.SW1 wrote:That would depend on exactly what is required to integrate and clear either configuration. It maybe cheaper to integrate the tank option across all a/c variants, it may not be possible to do that with conformal tanks.
Agreed on the conformals. If any were fitted they'd be permanent to all intents and purposes.SW1 wrote:Also a consideration maybe performance limitations on the a/c with conformal tanks, once there on there likely not coming off, drop tanks would give more flexibility
But thinking about it...
One thing that isn't clear from the Typhoon ECR proposal illustration is which variant Airbus were proposing. A 2-seater would make sense for the ECR mission, the image shown is an underside so it isn't clear if that is the case or not. If a 2 seater was being proposed the additional seat sacrifices some internal fuel capacity. And from all of the images that we've seen of the conformal tanks (which were always on single seaters) it doesn't look like the conformals would work on a 2 seater, you just couldn't get into or out of the cockpit. That might be why Airbus were showing a potential new wet pylon arrangement. They perhaps need a 2 seater for the ECR mission, but conformals won't work. With the reduction in fuel capacity of the 2 seater and the location of the jammer pods perhaps the only way to get additional fuel onboard is to make those pylons wet.