The Gripen series of jets has been nerfed into oblivion since its introduction into the game. Since the introduction of the Gripen-E jet around 6 months ago, the top-tier air RB competitiveness for Sweden has been somewhat alright–not the best jet, but definitely not the worst.
However, with the upcoming dev server updates adding around ~600kg of empty weight with only a minor increase in thrust, this means that the Gripen-E (a jet already much heavier than the Gripen-A/C variants) will be absolutely incapable of holding its own in a 1v1 dogfight.
As of current, the Gripen-E struggles to dogfight Rafales, Eurofighters, and SU-30s, with it only being able to reliably kill F-15s and F-18s in a close-in engagement/energy fight. With the continued airframe and drag coefficient nerfs to the Gripen, I believe there should be many better ways to balance a plane rather than repeatedly and artificially nerfing the plane into the ground.
The only thing to blame is bug reporters for doing their job.
Gaijin for introducing the Gripen E in an over-performing state to begin with.
Your post is claiming SAAB is lying at the end… wild.
Gaijin does not & has never balanced vehicles by means other than BR & historical weapons.
So your post is calling SAAB liars.
The change wasn’t a “nerf” , it was a correction to an incorrect weight based on a primary source.
Vehicles in the game are generally not “nerfed” or “buffed” in that sense of the word. They are corrected to more closely align with IRL capabilities and data. There are of course exceptions as some things are subject to balance (such as munitions or if a vehicle received an upgrade later on in service it might not get it in-game).
Not entirely correct, they can also chose not a to add specific changes that were made later in service or add munitions based on technical feasibility even if the specific version of the vehicle never used those munitions IRL (JAS39C and E being a prime examples with the AGM-65G for example).
So, a “correction to the incorrect weight” is implemented, but not the stated 98kN of max thrust (around 9,993.16 kgf) on the same datasheet? This makes no sense at all.
Be so for real right now. Rafales and Eurofighters, sometimes even SU-30s, absolutely walk circles in acceleration, turn time, and med-high-alt performance. The only advantage of the Gripen-E is sub 400km/h.
It was MASSIVELY nerfed based upon a report that should have been rejected (it was complete and utter nonsense) , not accepted and then actioned and after more than 3 years. We still have massively nerfed BOL.
That change was totally and completely ahistorical and done entirely for “balancing reasons”
There are even SAAB documents for how effective it should be
I can think of a number of other bug reports that have been left in limbo for years longer than they should have been and the only conclusion I can come to is that they dont want to fix the report for balancing reasons
I’ve only semi been following the latest Gripen E news, so this might be wrong but from what I understand about the issue is that its both accurate and inaccurate at the same time.
The increased base weight comes from the extended flaps/control surfaces which havent been modeled yet. At least that is my understanding of where this weight has come from.
So the Gripen E gets only the downsides without any of the benefits of what that weight should bring, namely increased turn performance from those extended control surfaces
The problem with Gripen (not only E, but C also) is that it’s designed for net-centric warfare, which doesn’t get simulated in WT at all. It’s a huge drawback for Gripen family of planes, as it’s as instrumental component of their combat effectiveness as it is flight performance for other types.
The weight comes from all of the additional fuel and electronics they stuffed into the plane.
Even base model Gripen overperforms any documentation for the longest time because Gaijin didn’t implement any kind of installation thrust loss for Gripen or F-18 engines.
