MKIIIC that Sweden actually ordered would be even better. 35mm, Akeron MP, Iron Fist APS and independent commander sight. Less power and armor than the MKIV but since they mostly face tanks anyways I doubt the difference would be major. I don’t yet have the MKIV in game but I doubt it has more armor in any way resembling the just about 10 metric tonnes weight difference (30% increase). Where has that weight gone? Engine I doubt weighs that much more, not the missiles either since the 9040 BILL weighs only about 24t.
1 Like
While the Gripen C hasn’t carried it to my knowledge it would have been capable of carrying the BK M90. As well as the Gripen A and the late AJS Vigg.
I got the Mk IV and i can tell it has less protection than STRF series while bein heavier.
Also funny thing is despite bein 30mm version it carries less ammunition than CV9030FIN, it carries exactly 234 rounds which makes me believe that Gaijin was going go to make it 35 model but changed their plans.
If it had 35mm it would’ve been one of the best if not the best ifv in this game.
that is insane, also just realized that I had replied to this and thought it was the CV90 MKIV topic but it is still the JAS 39 one so if we are to further this conversation I guess we should move it there
2 Likes
@Smin1080p_WT sorry for the ping but this is probably a question others have had but considering Gaijins stance on the C can we expect that the Gripen E will be the last vehicle? So essentially maybe Finnish F-35 and F18 maybe.
Considering it seems the C will continue to get upgraded with new missiles alongside all the other gripens. I dont know if you’re able to answer the question but it very much seems gaijin has no plans to expand the air tree top tier considering how its been handled the past 2 years.
Additionally with the stance that all gripens are the same can we expect a gap between the A and C and for no vehicles to take its place?
So in terms of capabilities, how does the Gripen E stack up with the Rafale and Typhoon?
I know the C variant lacks in the amount of missiles it can carry and the engine thrust, but the E seems to remedy some of this by enabling it to carry 7x Meteor missiles and 2 x Iris-T.
That’s 9 Missiles compared to the Eurofighters 10 and Rafale’s 8, although the Eurofighter can only carry 8 missiles when bringing 6 BVRAAM.
Is the improvement in thrust noticable? Because right now it seems the Gripen will be severely outmatched in the power department, this isn’t really suprising given it’s smaller class but I’d be interested if anyone has any info on climb rate etc.
Also, holy hell the cockpit of the E looks amazing.
Gripen E and NG only carry 8 missiles iirc
Edit: was wrong about missile load my bad.
Also the Gripen E thrust should bring it up over the .97 the C has, i dont have the exact figure but the current C models are all still A models as none of the C’s even use a radar used in the C. The C carried the PS0/5A MK.II when the MS18 was added. With the addition of GBU-39 they should buff the radar to PS0/5A MK.IV
1 Like
@Timpun do you have more info for the Gripen E specifically? exact figures is all over the place for the most part engine wise. Im better with the EW and the radar than its flight performance.
Gripen E with 10 hardpoints (9 for weapons, 7 for Meteor and 2 for IRIS-T as you guys already mentioned).
For flight charateristics I think it has closer to 1.1 - 1.2 thrust to weight along with it being a tad longer and wider and the wings rear en being closer to straight than the angle it had before meaning it has a much larger wing area. so more T/W and lower wing loading compared to the C variant meaning it can climb faster and loose less energy when turning.
The Gripen C has from my understanding a worse wing loading at empty weight compared to the Rafale and Eurofighter but similar to the EF at gross weight with the Rafale being worse. At max weight then the planes are more spaced apart with the EF beingh the best, Gripen C in the middle and Rafale worst again. Keep in mind that the Rafale has a slightly higher payload capacity than the EF (from what I have found in open sources) and that the small Gripen has a much lower payload.
Gripen E is better than the C in all aspects and matches/beats even the Eurofighter in wing loading with gross weight.
I made a small Excel sheet for just putting the numbers I’ve found from looking around different sites. Also took a top down view of all planes in question (except for the Gripen E) in to CAD and just traced the wings + canards to see if the numbers line up (scaled to the length and width of each plane of course). the Wing area for the JAS 39C lined up almost perfectly while the Rafale was almost 10 m^2 lower than what I read online and the Eurofighter was about 5m^2 lower.
Just keep in mind that these can be wrong both from the sources and my findings so what I say here can be entirely wrong in many directions and were just for me a quick way of compareing the differences I’ve found.
Also to quickly point out, I think the 39 E has the most advanced EW suite, even compared to the F-35 that it outpaces all the other planes by quite a lot. I have read Typhoon pilots that have said that the JAS 39C was incredibly scary to fiight against becuase of the already powerfull EW suite on the 39C. same goes for F-16 and F18 pilots in other Nordic air forces.
4 Likes
I appreciate the info, most people aren’t sure exactly what the Gripen E brings over the C which is why im a huge advocate to get the C broight up tonits actual standards so that the E doesn’t suffer those problems. The E has no right being added as a MS20 clone.
2 Likes
Entirely true, it is an entirely new plane, shares little to nothing with the 39C except how it looks and feels. Cockpit is laid out so that the pilots know exactly where stuff is from the 39C and the weapon hardpoints still have the cool hand held winch for maintinance crews to hang weapons and pull out the engine.
1 Like
Still need my flight path checklists on the legs
There are some rumors going around in Swedish media that the Swedish military is about to acquire the Taurus cruise missile, nothing official yet though but cool if true.
5 Likes
I think been talk about it for quite some time.
But i wouldn’t mind launching cruise missiles at T-80’s.
1 Like
Just found this:
The Swedish Defenceforce’s Material Supplier has gotten an order to buy the taurus:
So in practice the Defence forces has told the material supplier to purchase the Taurus but no info on if they are actually ordered yet. :P
2 Likes
really wonder that do PS-05 have better non-AESA variant than what they currently have in the game?
Yes there are a few variants.
Dunno about specifics tho.
Oh absolutely. you can check my report on it here:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/iu69IhxGXgQJ
2 Likes
PS-05/A we have in the game now I think is pretty accurate to the first version Gripen A launched with. Gripen C should have a lock range of somewhere between 130km and 160km with the MK3 radar pre MS20.
MS20 Gripen C should have even longer and the MK3 upgraded should have around 290km range and better detection of low RCS aircraft. At the same distance the non upgraded MK3 could see a plane with 4m RCS the upgraded MK3 can see a 0.4m RCS. And in the same distance the MK4 non-AESA can see a 0.1m RCS.
These numbers line up pretty well with testimonys from Thai pilots and the current radar range in game in terms of percentages.
4 Likes
Sounds about right. a bit sad that they kept the same Mk upgrade for the JAS39C
1 Like