We’re talking about a nation who created Viggen, which is plane thats famous for bein very expensive during its time.
They realized Gripen didnt need monster engine that can create 1:1 TWR because its general design was more then enough to compensate its less powerful engine.
Not to mention with E model they put much powerful engine that compensate its extra weight, so its safe to say that they can and will put better engines if its necessary.
Who are you on about
We are talking about the gripen for some reason
Saab is amazing, but Sweden did not pump infinite funds into their combat aviation research and development like the US and USSR. I should retract my potential lack of innovation statement. I will.
However,
The US and USSR did as they determined it was existential in the Cold War.
They had the most money to develop so it makes sense why there requirements are so high as they want the best
Ofc they didnt my friend.
Their vision was and still is very different compare to Usa and Russia when it comes to developing any military vehicle.
İts safe to say this method applies to almost every European design.
I agree.
Regardless of funding or the smarter more cost-effective approach they took as well as Western Europe (it most definitely is, the US & Federation are now developing pure multirole fighters), a 1:1 thrust to weight is a requirement for air dominance platforms. Not a requirement for multirole platforms. The Gripen like many other delta canards is a Swingrole/Multirole aircraft.
It’s probably very good at everything.
But as we all know the saying, “A jack of all trades is a master of none”. The Swedes do not have all the money in the world to make one specific fighter for every single task out there like ground striking, electronic warfare, air superiority and air dominance.
The Americans had doctrine of. “Keep it, simple stupid” and developed fighters with one dominant assignment upon development. Only once serial production began additional capabilities were added. The USSR had similar approaches as well, but not quite, but I digress.
The US is now starting to take the European approach in aircraft specifically designed for multirole as the cold war is over and never again will we be able to throw infinite funds in military development programs (though still insanely high).
This explains the whole reason why SAAB created one specific plane for every generation.
Their requirements are really different, for example they needed a plane that can hide in the forest, can take off easily from any roads, needs to be agile and can be armed in couple of minutes for any situation.
This requirements led them to create Draken,Viggen and Gripen in the end.
But lets not forget SAAB actually innovated many features first, best example will be Datalink in this case.
İts safe to say they dont lack innovation but rather not to put massive funds into them.
The F/A-18 has superior high alpha performance to the MiG-29. There are publically available papers you could have read to understand it better before making ridiculous comments like this. Also, once again not understanding the definition of supermaneuverability.
T/W ratio is NOT everything. The Gripen and F/A-18 are testaments to this. The legacy hornet has higher performance than the super hornet with the exception of high alpha. The super has better alpha for better carrier performance when loaded with additional ordnance.
The Gripen is a good plane, but it’s not an energy fighter. They are fully capable of slam dunking these “supermaneuverability” fighters in WVR combat but are mostly just going to be lacking a HOBS missile to start. Modern combat doesn’t care for rate fighters anymore. The peak of that was the MiG-23 era for war thunder. You can already see how dangerous the Gripen will be by looking at the Mirage 2000-5F. The M2K already smokes the MiG-29 (any) in a sustained fight.
Very funny.
Where did you learn this, Instructor? At the Top Gun Academy?
Its a video game.
Just an arcade game according to you.
It’s absolutely a mandatory requirement for all air superiority/dominance fighters of the 4+ and 5th generation to have a 1:1 or more thrust to weight ratio and any platforms that remained in service within the US has been upgraded to around a 1:1.
The fighters that could not be upgraded were retired such as the F-18A/C. All Legacy Hornets are retired.
You are just larping as a fighter pilot again.
Show us, Professor Datamine.
Please show your class (since you are the know it all) the “publicly available paper” that the prove the F-18 legacy Hornet has BETTER alpha capability than the Mig29.
So, the Super hornet has even more than the Flanker too? Or Su-37? I would love to see official documentation differentiating the magical capability of the Hornet. Why are they not classified as supermaneuverable, Professor?
Because you have not gotten a clue what the term is.
interesting!
says the guy they thought supermaneuvrability means losing control of your aircraft???
What a joke. No wonder you are increasingly disregarded with every statement.
It appears the cease-fire has ended
Btw guys, gaijin just announced 2 premium tanks that were listed in a supposed “leak list” that ppl were sharing this week
We’re probably getting the su27 and the f15
Gotta keep this dude honest. Its so annoying to see this dude make up stuff. Its funny because I have a quote of him saying the Gripen has a low thrust to weight and will suffer.
He’s such a flip flopper just to feel important. Making up stuff just to be “right” or for ego steers the game away from reality and splits the community.
We all agree the Gripen is a great aircraft. But is designed under different doctrines in mind.
I know that this is going to be a very broad question with a number of factors that could be dissected and answered in an essay format, but at full fuel and just the base aircraft with no missiles, how would the following six planes rank in maneuverability and thrust?
Just trying to get an idea of what’s to come I suppose…
Just forget and leave your differences behind bro, maybe he’s wrong, maybe ur right, maybe ur both wrong, maybe ur both right in some way… It’s just a game after all, when you feel that things might heat up just kill the subject to avoid further arguing, it’s not worth and it’ll stress both of you
in Wt in air RB it might be :
1- * F-16C
2- * Su-27
3- * Mig-29 (base model)
4- * F-15
5- * Gripen
6- * Mig-29 SMT
the f15 would be pretty close to the mig29 in terms of maneuverability, the fulcrum might rate a liiiiiil bit better but nothing exceptional
isn’t its thrust to weight much higher though or am i wrong on that
Not quite, because he swears everything he has stated is declared matter of fact, when actually everything he says is in direct conflict of another statement he’s made down the line. I find it quite hilarious in pointing it out. Others do as well.
When you make up stuff it derails the productivity of the topic and also of getting the community to come to one agreement on anything. He does nothing but splits the community to stroke ego.
Unless he can take personal credit in some form, any thought you or anyone may have about the game or research that does not align with his narrative is unfounded and unverified.
He has disregarded everything you have to say thus far, and you know this. Though he has done it very politely.
I always hear praise about how much nose authority the Su-27 has (especially in games like DCS), but I actually don’t know if this is referring to the later variants, or just in comparison to US planes in general. I also rarely see it talked about when comparing the Su-27 to the Mig-29, so it had me really curious as to how it would perform compared to what we currently have ingame I suppose.
I personally really love fighters that have nose authority in WT, so it would be nice to have a general explanation in reference to something I’m familiar with, like the Mig-29 or F-16 ingame.