Any numbers to go along with the chart to see what we’re working with?
The JA37 manual is declassified and public so you can sort of estimate the scale by the two JA37 lines and since the MIL power of JAS39 is overlapping the MAX power of the JA37 you can get sort of close there. But it’s still just estimations done by Gaijin. Especially since it doesn’t mention loadout or amount of fuel as far as i know.
Edit:
This report has more sources and info:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/CjPzh5Jy67q2
If you want some of the Viggen docs I’d suggest looking at Del 1, 2, 3, and 4
Resume
Like Del 3 is for the AJS 37 which I used to have the engine overheat reduced and climb and high alt ceiling fixed for the Viggens as the AJ iirc was stated to be about 10% of so below the JA37
These should all be available online and are declassified
As for going forward I unfortunately can’t fully help, I know a weird amount of the Gripen, definitely more than surface level but I am definitely not the most knowledgeable on the vehicle, for more in depth questions you’ll probably need to ask someone else, apologies.
Hmm. Well I’m not sure what configuration, speed and angle ROC is calculated usually for jet aircraft but from what I’ve seen with best possible online sources
Viggen’s ROC is about 203~ m/s considering the RM8 at the time and the brute power after the modification of the JT8D into the RM8
Gripen’s ROC is about 254~ m/s. Despite the RM12/ RM16 (414) being less powerful than the RM8, the Gripen’s lighter weight and the optimized airframe allows it to achieve a higher ROC
Of course there could also be a lot of variables to take into account but it’s what I’ve seen.
-
MIL-STD-1553B is a data bus that does not magically change the shape of physical pylons. You are comparing the AKU-170 ejector racks (for the R-77) and APU-73 rails (for the R-73) on the MiG-29SMT to NATO STANAG 3842 standards. These Russian ejector racks are mechanically incompatible with NATO standards; therefore, the SMT physically cannot fire the AMRAAM or AIM-9.
-
The Su-30MKI does not natively support the ASRAAM. The integration was a highly customized, multi-million-dollar project requiring Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and MBDA to create bespoke software modifications and physical adapters just to make a Western missile work on a Russian airframe. Besides, we would never know if a Russian radar’s datalink would work with a Meteor. There is zero evidence to show that HAL and MBDA’s custom modifications support any other NATO missiles.
-
As for your “family of planes” argument: The very definition of the Gripen E’s DIMA (Distributed Integrated Modular Avionics) architecture is to create a standardized “family” for European/NATO weapons. The Gripen E, the Rafale, and many other jets built under NATO’s MIL-STD-1760 and STANAG 3842 standards literally use the exact same data buses and compatible pylons.
Your entire counterargument relies on logical fallacies. You cherry-picked only a part of my argument, exaggerated it into a strawman to falsely prove your point, and completely ignored the Hardware (STANAG 3842). Stop confusing a basic data bus with native, full-scale weapon integration.
1 Like
That’s quite literally the situation that the gripen e is in regarding mica
projecting much
funny how you call it logical fallacies when your exact arguments are applied to another plane
the mica dosent use the amraam launch rail
man its almost as if i made that stament so you realise that yours is equally bs
1 Like
For those interested I made a bug report listing several of the inaccuracies in the Gripen C and E cockpits:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/gagNQxRV2UKe
1 Like
might be rejected on grounds of it being a buglist?
1 Like
added
updated
There is a really nice video from the Swedish Airforce museum where a former fighter pilot tests their JAS39E simulator that gives REALLY clear details about the MFD (timestamped to 4:35, English subtitles available).
At 5:10 the pilot selects a target and gets a gray square with info that states “UN-ID” in the center for the yellow unidentified targets.
3 Likes
If it’s already closed for lacking enough info - and you add info, do they open it up and give it another go then?
(Genuinely curious)
If it’s closed you can either message the Technical Moderators here on the forum and ask them to re-open it or you can use the “report” function on the bug report site to ask them to re-open it so that you can add more information.
Click to reveal general guide for contacting moderators
You can find all the teams and the areas they handle listed here: (Who is who and Reporting Procedure). If you don’t get an answer within a few days you can add more moderators from the list to the original message instead of sending a new message (that way you preserve the date of the message and it doesn’t look like a new request), adding one of the moderators to the message every 2-3 days or so until you get an answer.
Please do not to add the seniors until you have tried all other regular moderators, the Seniors likely won’t answer unless they are added and pinged by the regular moderators but if you’ve added all the regular moderators with no answer then you can add the seniors.
3 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
still marked as accepted, no changes done yet
You guys can just copy-paste my report if you want and include the new source, I won’t go through the trouble of messaging tech mods
Messaged one of them, adding another as there’s no reply after 48h
It is Gripen. You would sooner get a reply from a morgue for tenancy than a useful response from a tech mod.
1 Like
updated