I’ve finally managed to get my IPA7 suggestion done, bonus; IPA3 and IPA8 as well, even though these don’t differ alot.
Whats also interesting (at least to me); @Faster_Boiiiii Regarding the Swiss evaluation document from 2008, I came across a picture on the Eurofighter website showing the IPA3 on a Swiss airfield in November 2008 - the picture taken by Eurofighter GmbH. It is very likely that the IPA3 was tested by the Swiss Air Force and not an actual production aircraft, which could explains the (more or less good) results.
Nah, it should have been added with F-15C MSIP II.
That thing is DOA. Only thing it can do really well is pointing nose at super slow speeds. It can wipe the floor with thrust vectoring flankers due to it but thats all it can do well. USN wants something fast as fleet defender because hornernets or superhornets simply CANT do this role
The internal pylons are not proven yet. Only the second outer ones and then belly. Not inner ones.
And mainly no pictures of them.
If they give it ability to carry 8 amraams, i wont be certainly mad as iam rushing it day one but i still dont see concrete evidence exept few screens of something.
Last picture was pretty much taken as meme
The blue one looks like it was done by someone in MS paint.
And only remaining is picture of double rack which i said it could and then the two german loadout charts from god knows where without any point of source.
If you carry double rack, you can carry only 4 BVR missiles as of now. Which puts you at 10 missiles max of which 6 are IR missiles with limited use in current meta.
u genius, we have the book sources / website sources, partialy official eurofighter stuff.
i did the quick and dirty search for you to show it to you jesus
If you carry double rack, you can carry only 4 BVR missiles as of now. Which puts you at 10 missiles max of which 6 are IR missiles with limited use in current meta.
I said it couldnt carry 12 missiles, then listed all possible symetrical combinations.
12 is nowhere to be seen and the biggest load of 10 is limited to 4 amraams. We are not getting meteors anytime soon. Even asraams aint comming.
So one questionable picture and then loadout chart without any real proof of it being carried. Have you ever seen amraam on inner wing pylons? I have yet to see it.
you can go the technical route which is that MFRLs are mounted on 14inch lugs and use the standard electrical connections which are found on both the ALDERU and AHDERU meaning every wing pylon can technically carry the MFRL
So exactly like SAAF Gripen using basically everything that isn’t an IRIS-T? It even has got Mav Gs that were not integrated into the Gripen until MS20 standard, and SAAF uses MS19.
There is proof of technical possibility that in tune with how Gaijin has handled every single jet up to date, i.e as long as it could be done, then it’s good enough, EFT shouldn’t an exception.
Not entirely I changed my mind on Mavs, as they use a universal rail with the seeker and warhead being the only change. So yes Mav G can be mounted and any gripen as they dont need additional systems to use said weapon. That it not the Case for GBU-39 which is only found on the MS20 which required a new upgrade to the avionics for CAS. This inclusion is also pushing towards the gripens eventually getting the PS0/5A MK.IV radar. Rn all gripens use the Gripen A/MS17 PS0/5A radar, so for now the only thing the SAAF gripen cant use is GBU-39, now you could say that they shouldn’t have Mavs based on the fact that the only reason they gave the swedish Mavs was because there are more than enough photos of Swedish Gripens mounting and using RB75 and RB75T, something the SAAF gripens have never mounted but could. Ill keep up to date with the SAAF inaccuracies but for now only the GBU-39 should be removed.
Though i will point out that unlike many nations SAAF didn’t need to show any evidence of AGM65 in their arsenal or them ever mounting them to get the AGM 65.
