I'm not talking about just the electronic LRUs, but the structural layout. The wings might outwardly look the same, but are being made to carry pretty much twice the payload than what they were originally meant for. That requires structural changes on the inside. That's what they mean by structurally different.
So yes, the testing we need to do is limited to just certifying the aerostructure under the new internal configuration. They don't expect this to take very long, but we still need to see if the changes negatively effect the aerostructure's integrity or longevity.
It's useless to say they are same as Mk1. You can't just take the Mk2's wings and put them on Mk1, it'll probably throw the DFCC off as the wings are likely to be of a different weight.
That's literally what RAF did. All Jag squadrons, including those for nuclear strike, directly exchanged Jags for Tornados. Of course Tornados could do so much more.
en.wikipedia.org
Well, the point is - the Jag (or Tornado)'s generation was simply not in any shape to fly a 25-30T aircraft with a single engine and still have any respectable TWR. Not to mention engine reliability was very questionable in those days. That's why it wasn't done.
5th gen engines can make this happen. That's why a single engine is sufficient for F-35.
Increasing cost & complexity by procuring and maintaining twice the number of engines, in the off-chance that you get shot in one of them (but not the other) is not practical strategy.
It's highly likely that even Russia might relegate most strike duties to the Checkmate (operating in conjunction with S-70) going ahead as the Su-34 won't be survivable and Su-57 is an ASF.
We'll do the same eventually. Manned platform is ultimately too risky.
I thought you said Jag & Tornado were not for the same role.
My, that's some self-awareness on your part.
