The one in the image has Danish registration numbers on the tail though so its probably just a demonstrator or temporarily painted for the photoshoot.
I have seen some images of F-16’s with Argentinian tail-numbers but with them a lot of speculation if those are real or not. i assume its going to take more than 2 months to deliver as the pilots need to be trained for the F-16 before delivery (or at least be close to done with training when the planes get there).
F-16 training takes about 9 months so…
If we want to use that argument all the Leopard 2s in every other tech tree need to go to the German tech tree since they are all “Modifications” of German tanks….
"Wikipedia is not a good source"🤓. Who told you that? Because Wikipedia is one of the best places for unbiased information on the internet.
I have a feeling you spent 0 minutes actually reading the article (because you answered within 1 minute of me posting the comment). If you were to actually truly think critically, instead of regurgitating the phrase “Wikipedia is not a good source” because your teacher or a WT mod told you so; you would be able to come to the conclusion that it makes a lot of sense for the European, NATO-compatible fighter jet produced by a company that has a history of working with other weapons manufacturers within NATO to be able to carry a NATO missile.
Wikipedia can be editted by anyone. I can change the Tornado Gr1 wikipedia to say it had Meteor BVRAAMs. Its not going ot suddently make it true.
I dont need to read the entire article.
CTRL+F and search for “MICA”
Its listed only once in the entire thread under “Armamemnts and equipment”
even doubled checked the english version to make sure there was no google translate issues.
But, if you think Wikipedia is a good enough source, submit a bug report. I wouldnt hold my breath though
Most information on Wikipedia has a small reference number that takes you to a source in the bibliography. Wikipedia is half decent source for sources. But information that lacks a source (like MICA on a gripen) should be taken with a huge pinch of salt.
You know, almost everybody can change anything on Wikipedia, that’s the whole purposes of it.
So while it may be less unbiased than traditional media , the information on it IF NOT BACKED UP BY A SERIOUS SOURCE should be taken with a BIG grain of salt.
About the MICA and the Gripen, there’s some pictures suggesting it could indeed be equipped with it. But there haven’t been ANY picture of the Gripen equipped with it.
Iirc it was proposed to be integrated on it but since nobody wanted to pay for the MICA integration on the Gripen then it was never integrated. The Aim-120 was good enough and probably a lot cheaper than the MICA.
While I understand the criticism about the Pl-12 being nerfed. (Supposed to be about 100km range with an indigenous seeker so =|= than the R-77 but not necessarily better).
Why do you feel like the Derby/ Darter are nerfed?
In fact, if you beleive Wikipedia as a reliable source, then the MBDA MICA wikipedia page does not list any nation that currently uses Gripen as a “current operator”
Gripen suppose to be compatible with MICA and it was advertised before.
The thing is all Gripen operators including Sweden decided to use Amraam/Meteor missiles for BVR, as for the VR they chose to equip either sidewinders or IRIS-T.
but then again Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source. worse yet is that the info here isn’t even backed up by a outside source from Wikipedia. so someone added the information without any sort of proof of the matter.
don’t think that good old Exocet (or Harpoon) stands much of a chance against an Aster X)
talking of AshMs i heard the future FC/ASW may also be capable of anti-“insert-big-and-non-maneuverable-aircraft-here”.
A bit like a ~800kg ramjet propelled AAM if you will, or a fat meteor
Back on topic and regarding the AMRAAM A vs MICA range, i noticed during the test back in march that f-16 (i don’t own it, but have access to US rank VIII, so i got to test it in march) was more reliable than mirage 2000 for long range shots, mainly due to the acceleration difference between f-16 and m2k.
i think the small range difference between the 2 missiles might be compensated by their carrier performances at high altitude.
Could also be because the MICA wobbled a lot at a certain point, idk
So when is player count planned to be reduced? Even dev server is filled with 16v16 teams with reduced player count option enabled and amount of literarly unavoidable missiles is just too much.
