Yeah, I’ve seen stuff directly stating the C can carry MICA, but nothing nearly as definitive for the E.
JAS39E was mostly designed around NATO standards and being able to include the Meteor. It’s unclear if the JAS39E can use the MICA because of not only how new the jet is IRL, but also lots of speculation. One thing for sure is the JAS39E is designed for hypersonic BVR engagements with the meteor.
That aside, we are missing out on sweet camos for them:
2 Likes
And all are platforms for MBDA missiles, while the F-35 is far more American than it is European. That’s the problem with your statement. It is somewhat up to interpretation, but especially since it specifically listed the KF-21 as another platform it is integrated on, it seems quite clear that it is referring to a list of the platforms that MBDA missiles are integrated on, “thus they form the core of Europe’s air dominance capabilities across it’s main combat air platforms:…” if anything, the colon listing “its main combat air platforms,” and then without a semicolon also stating the KF-21 with the note that it was international further supports that. If they were two separate statements, a list of European planes, and other international planes, then that would be separated by a semicolon to delineate, but it’s not. It’s only separated by a comma, suggesting that the end statement is a continuation of the list.
Your interpretation could be correct still, but that would imply a typo on the press release.
there is literally no world in which that makes grammatical sense, the word it very clearly refers to the noun used before it, in this case Europe. And there is nothing there to imply the list is anything but a list of europes combat air platforms
are you trying to argue that the F35 doesnt and will not make up a considerable portion of Europe’s combat aircraft?
and the part about KF21 further confirms this because it is clearly not a part of that list, if it was the word and would be located after F35 not before.
the statement is very clearly listing what they see as europes main combat air platforms
so no, your interpretation would involve a very significant typo
also it is known that meteor is integrated on Gripen, so this in no way implies integration of mica, as again F35 is listed, and mica is not even planned for integration on that
1 Like
Okay, I gave up and asked Gemini. Sorry for being an A-hole. You’re right about the “its” referring to Europe, however it also agreed that the sentence heavily implies that MBDA was saying that the missiles were integrated or being integrated into the planes listed, at least in-part (IE, not every missile is necessarily going on every plane). In other words, your grammatical interpretation is correct, but your broader interpretation of the statement is disingenuous.
“The statement implies a strong and direct association between MBDA and the platforms listed. It is much more than a generic list of European aircraft; it is a description of an integrated ecosystem.”
The implication is that the jets listed can use and rely on MBDA’s missiles, especially considering that all of them have at least one current or ongoing integration with the missiles listed (including the F-35 as both I and kizvy have stated and shown).
also it is known that meteor is integrated on Gripen, so this in no way implies integration of mica, as again F35 is listed, and mica is not even planned for integration on that
Its almost like I’ve already stated this multiple times.
Its also likely why the report was rejected, because the F-35 doesn’t carry the MICA and there seems to be no intention to integrate them. So, the same could be said for the Gripen and MICA. Hence the need by Gaijin for the source to specifically state the Gripen could use the MICA, which is fair.
or primary sources that don’t explicitly spell out that Gripen E can carry MICA specifically.
Yeah, I’ve seen stuff directly stating the C can carry MICA, but nothing nearly as definitive for the E.
Hence why I mentioned the need for more specific sources if MICA on Gripens was ever going to actually happen. Still doesn’t support the claim that there’s as much evidence for F-15 integration of MICA as Gripen, or that the F-15 should get it if the Gripen does. The Gripen is at least directly associated to the company that manufactures the missiles, while the F-15 isn’t. But as it stands now, neither should likely get it.
Don’t they utilize the same base for weaponry avionics and pylons, just that the E has more and updated ones?
we have argued somewhere here about whether gripen is capable of using mica or not and it actually is capable of using micas as gripen is capable of carrying the pylons that micas integrated into. it has not been directly stated by the officials but indirectly it would not be a far fetched opinion that it could carry them.
I much prefer AMRAAMs on my gripen to R-Darters as long as I’m not in a tournament match.
Just a more versatile missile overall
(not sure if the R-Darter tracking bug is still a problem either)
That document was early on, with non finalized EFCS, the document even specifies all flaps are not controlled by the FCS during most flights yet.
It also doesnt have any numbers on x or y axis, it doesnt even give us config of either jet or exact altitude. Neither is it specified or otherwise shown how precise the plot is as the lines are kinda thick and of very poor quality and numbers are missing on x and y axis. Its not a reliable source what so ever, and most likely just an early approximation, with the non finalized FCS, and at classfied speeds, alt, config etc…
2 Likes