Thread by @Gabriel64869839

As I had guessed, here it is: SPEAR 3 first guided firing. I'll add one thing here which is pretty welcome: look at the rack used. It seems the Common Weapon Launcher for Typhoon is alive. You can just about see in the photos were the side attachment points fit when in use.

https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1858093551453708402

Look at the SPEAR 3 fit used for the test, and at the sides of the rack. Compare to mock-ups for the Common Weapon Launcher. We can still hope (eventually) someone asks for hanging more weapons from it to make the most out of it, and Typhoon as a whole.

On other hand, we haven't yet seen the quadruple rack for SPEAR 3 out in the open. Won't be used on Typhoon despite very early graphics. I guess Typhoon does not really like the aerodynamics (and length!) of the quadruple. If that's the case, SDB is also probably a no-no.

The (notorious) length problem on Typhoon affects most notably innermost pylons but, in a different way, possibly outer ones too. On the innermost it stems from the very real problem that if a store is too long, it literally blocks the landing gear from deploying. See the doors?

The length problem is what caused plenty of heavy load configs in CGI to go nowhere. It's what creates annoying situation in which large pods or missiles (Storm Shadow) only fit in place of external tanks. Rafale went for less AA stations under belly but undercarriage not in way.

The length problem most recently emerged as annoyance in developing EW variant for Germany. Which produced the proposal of trying to move the fuel tanks inwards. Look at how visibly awkward that is. Could it actually be done? Maybe, but doubt anyone is ever going to actually try.

The "perfect" solution had been identified in Conformal Tanks, with fuel connections on the dorso built in into Tranche 3 jets. Unfortunately it seems the aerodynamic impact of this solution too has been found to be too much to tackle and no one wants to spend that much money.