Is that your standard NVD or like night-time AR display based on the jets sensors?
I’m also really curious to see what the picture-in-picture function is like, particularly the resolution.
We also have plenty of documentation showing Gripen’s significantly underperforming across the board, but that doesn’t stop them killing it. I suspect it will be a fight for any of the Eurodeltas to have a half competent fm.
Eurofighter will be the first jet in WT to supercruse above 1.2 Mach? Do we know what are the kind of altitudes and if it is clean or with missiles?
We do? Id originally heard the gripen was significantly overperforming prior to its multiple minor FM nerfs. Still seems like a strong aircraft but more in-line with what I’d expect.
I could be wrong (I got yelled at by the russian fanboys when I simply asked to see their sources for the “Su-27 is MASSIVELY underperforming” claims because I was curious in what way it was underperforming), but I have a nagging feeling a lot of planes in-game a relatively decent FM-wise, but general perception is skewed by how massively the F-16’s overperform.
Like, the Su-27’s are decent in 2c and stunningly dangerous with nose authority, particularly at low speeds. The delta canards like the J-10 and Gripen both seem very strong in the 1c and very consistent in the 2c, which is (to my understanding) a defining feature of delta canard layouts. The american jets, with their penchant towards the EM theory and BVR combat lean heavily on energy retention (2c) and acceleration.
All that to say, I could be entirely wrong, but the only jet where I “feel” there is something definitively wrong with the FM are the F-16’s and their idiotic nose authority despite their horrendous wing loading and just about every single description of them being that they are pure 2c fighters, which they were in-game as well until CC’s like defyn and the likes whined about “compression” and “lack of nose authority”.
I do also think ppl discussing FM’s in RB is unfair, specifically because those FM’s are a lot more limited to the constraints of the instructor system.
oh sorry, it was mentioned right below your message
The Rafale also supercruises, that aside tho, theres actually very few jets afaik that CAN even supercruise, which has made some americans very angry in the past, as the only thing they’ll ever have that can supercruise are 5th gen jets, and the F-16XL (which will be a neato premium) afaik
(List from wiki, does appear to be missing a few one off prototypes here and there)
As an aside, im sorta surprised the J-10’s cant supercruise, mostly since their aerodynamic layouts are very VERY similar to that of the rafale, but the chinese hadnt really caught up to western engines until very recently afaik, so that might explain the issue there.
1 Like
Gripen’s currently underperforming instant aoa wise, sustained wise, and some other stuff I’m not awake enough to recall at present. If you read the more credible sources [manufacturer claims, evaluation documents, studies]. Even the least charitable sources with dubious credibility they used for some of the nerfs, show it underperforms . You’ll come up notably short on the in game figures, before we even consider the struggles it has achieving G loadings demonstrated to achieve relatively easily.
It was relatively correct early into the nerfs (2nd after introduction iirc?), outside of energy retention where it overperformed significantly, and instead of fixing that they just kept nerfing it to the joke of a FM we have now when you compare it to the papers. A lot of the changes weren’t documented either in changelogs, so the few minor nerfs they’ve told us about are compounded by a myriad they haven’t told us about. A lot of people just kept saying “Good” when it got nerfed, and it kept getting nerfed.
Mainly caused by Americans complaining given 3 minor nations received Gripen and we’d all been dealing with significantly worse platforms by that time and were still succeeding. So if these Eurodeltas perform well enough to upset the Americans, I am entirely willing to put coin on the effort needed to undo poorly thought out nerfs being comparable to trying to draw blood from a stone.
Tho this is an EFT thread. This is also probably written terribly, as I’m to take a nap soon. Short and long of it is yes, we know the thing is underperforming compared to sources with some credibility, and even the worst sources they directly used to justify nerfs. And I do worry the same will come of Rafale and EFT. They didn’t listen to us when we pointed out the issues with their reasoning and sources, doubt they’ll listen to other minor nations, especially if folk face the same issues we did where a vocal opposition of major nation players shouted us down and pretended the sources credible in spite of their provenance and circumstance.
4 Likes
missiles yeah, no tanks. afaik the 1.3 is with 2 wing tanks
I mean all those jets are from the same time as the rafale and eurofighter, note the 2 year difference from F-22 to Eurofighter, and 3 year difference from YF-22 (carried missiles) and YF-23 (could have carried missiles)
Also some aircraft that can super cruise, like F-15E, though I’m not sure if it can with full missile load, aren’t on the list.
Can the F-15E supercruise? I’ve seen some ppl claim it can, but ive never EVER seen a reliable source for that claim, nor anyone but the occasional random person on the internet make the claim either…
With some altitude and clean, probably. At a similar altitude with 8 amraam it might just be able to break mach. Some manual on it had it as a warning for the 229 equipped F-15E
in war thunder you can get other aircraft to supercruise…
F-104 and strangely the Mirage F1 come to mind
1 Like
English electric lightning is a aircraft that can supercruise but isn’t in the wiki
1 Like
No offense but “probably” doesnt sound like “yes” to me, particularly since, as I said, I’ve yet to see any source claiming it can besides random ppl on the internet…
I’d assume “full” to mean 8.
1 Like
Its mentioned on the wiki, but it was the protoype which achieved this, and had different engines. Seems the operational EEL didnt supercruise, likely why its not on the list.
It says with “full air-to-air missile load”. For altitude I’d guess 36,000 ft or there abouts. But that is just a guess.
Worse engines, they didn’t have reheat. The actual argument for it’s removal was that the lightning doesn’t have enough range to cruise at supersonic. Which imo is just moving the goal posts
2 Likes
The Lightning F.6 could fly at Supersonic speeds without afterburner (as confirmed by the manuals). It kept getting removed from the page though because there was an edit war over the meaning of supercruise (supersonic flight without afterburner Vs supersonic flight without afterburner for an arbitrarily decided “useful period of time”). It seems the second camp won out and the Lightning got excluded from the page due to its low fuel capacity not being enough to satisfy their arbitrary endurance requirement.
6 Likes
yeah I know they were lower thrust, but I dont exactly have details regarding the EEL that did achieve supercruise beyond “it was a prototype” and “it had different/worse engines”. Its possible it had a lot lower weight for example compared to the combat ready production model with the better engines for example. Either way, like I said, a few prototype aircrafts and the likes that could supercruise arent on the list, the EEL prototype being one of them.