It does not line up with their behaviours; and the reference they chose to model it off of will likely lead to nothing coming of this. Nothing wrong with reminding folk that model issues getting fixed are often a false hope; see all of the bug reports that haven’t been acted on for far more popular aircraft.
Would be nice if they did act, but they’ve more reason to not fix it in this case than many others, those others also haven’t been fixed. Better to have caution than hope for model touch ups post livery creation.
The prior statements were shorthand, as I am incredibly tired and thought advising caution the clear take away.
fair enough. But I feel like there is enough info on the situation to add the micas to the gripen. It also helps balancing imo since the gripens have been off meta for a long wile
I personally haven’t really seen enough info for MICA’s on the E version sadly (and i’ve been one of the players actively searching for sources and bug reporting the E on the DEV server for several days).
We’ll have to see how it performs once released but i personally don’t think MICA’s will be necessary for it, it’s already a quite small plane that is relatively hard to detect and the E get AESA, IRST, Seven BVR missiles (hopefully AIM-120C5 as an option) and bigger engine compared to the C version. I’m guessing it’s going to land at BR 14.0 because i don’t think it deservers 14.3 on paper, at least when compared to other 14.3 aircraft.
The Gripens are still performing quite well as far as i know, they aren’t dominating as they were when they were new that true, but i don’t think they are bad either. Looking at Novembers numbers for rank 8 planes then in kills per spawn the C version lands at place 31 out of 102 planes and in kills per death it’s in place 24 out of 102. So it’s still up there in performance (similar but sliiiiiightly worse placements for October).
C5 has better energy retention and generally performs adequately. B has better agility, which the playerbase values on account of them being insistent on sub 5km engagements. C5 is almost objectively the more functional if you’re not inclined towards knife fights. Both do the job.
The AIM-120A/B (In game there is no difference between A and B, IRL i think it’s just a software and guidance logic upgrade) is exactly the same as the RB99 (That’s just Sweden’s designation for them).
The C5 in the game is almost identical to the A/B but the rocket engine differs, guidance changes, tiny bit less drag but also less turning ability and it has slightly more explosives. Instead of having a “quick” booster and a “slower” sustainer the C5 runs just a bit better sustainer as a booster for the entire fuel burn but also weighs a bit more. It slightly changes the guidance logic to be better for longer ranges. The wings are cut off so it has a tiny bit less drag but also turns a tiny bit worse.
This in the end just means it’s a bit slower to get up to speed but it reaches further. So compared to the A/B it’s better for longer ranges but worse for shorter rangers.
So TLDR:
C5 is a small bit better at longer ranges and a small bit worse at shorter ranges.
Here is a player made (no idea how accurate it is sadly) spreadsheet for all the missiles in the game: Missile data, player gathered.
Even though they’re both AIM-120s, the 120a (RB99)/b excel in maneuverability and acceleration at low speeds, while the 120c excels in energy retention at long distances.
However, the 120c’s maneuverability and acceleration at low speeds have been nerfed. Given the above, within the AIM-120 family, the a/b excel in close- to medium-range combat, while the c excels in medium- to long-range combat.
From here on, this is just my own speculation.
Compared to its likely peers, the AESA-EF, SM2, and F-15GE, the E Gripen is inferior in speed and acceleration. Additionally, it can only carry the AIM-120a, which has a short range. This means the E Gripen will need to close the distance to the enemy aircraft. However, enemy aircraft are equipped with large numbers of long-range AIM-120c and R-77-1 missiles, and they fire their missiles with greater energy retention. Additionally, the ESA radar allows for continuous DL. I don’t think it’s possible to get close to the enemy aircraft in this state.
If its 14.0 then id think 120s would be enough but I feel like sweden needs a 14.3. Correct me if am wrong but every other nation will have a 14.3 next update besides sweden. And they can just give micas to gripen (not unrealistic) and make it a 14.3
I’ve yet to see any proof of MICAS on the E variant. There are plenty of sources for micas on C but the E is a completely new plane so backwards compatibility can’t really be argued.
I would personally prefer it have as close to in service armament as feasible for it’s BR and then later on it can go up in BR when electronic warfare, datalink, Meteors, IRIS-T and things like that get’s added to the game.
I mean every nation should have a good vehicle for every br. Having to grind a whole another nation for a 14.3 plane seems weird. Just like how having to grind another tree to play heavy tanks is stupid.
Israel is still in the 14.0 BR range. Besides 14.0 vs 14.3 is a very small gap so it won’t really make a difference aside from downtiered matches. You’re still facing Eurofighters, Rafales, and the upcoming SU-30SM2 with its radar upgrade.