What’s the climb to rate/acceleration performance you’re basing off?
To be honest I never expect the Gripens to be good at acceleration with the engine selection they have, but it’s off set by having reduced drag that it is designed with.
As i remember we had this conversation with multiple people on different Gripen thread and iirc some of them had flight performance charts that showed that JAS39C high altitude acceleration and time to climb was underperforming after flight model changes.
I will contact them to make sure if that’s still the case or not.
Iirc the current Gripen Flight performance is based on the Viggen comparison charts from FMV, of which the Viggen is underperforming. Though that’s apparently not possible to model, and given their engine can’t properly model things like stability for Canard aircraft correctly, you may have some problems bug reporting.
Yikes, I totally forgot about that part.
What makes me think is that which sources did Gaijin used to model JAS39E’s flight performance? I’m suspecting they used 39C’s performance as reference.
Probably, when info for stuff isn’t well known gaijin uses their own method, you can see this quite a bit. Some things also can’t be reported as unless the game blatantly tells you, bug reports(using datamined values) are not a viable source.
The Viggens in game weigh about 1000kg too much but they match some of their respective charts, gaijin can’t accept bug reports on their weight because it’s a datamine source and because the game engine will never be able to properly model the Viggens flight performance.
1 Like
I still believe the that the Gripens initially came out with the F-16’s FM as I noticed a few things when the Gripen came into the dev server (the 39A when first introduce)
Very old screenshot but the indicator for me was the abnormally high ammo count of 512 rounds back then which is roughly what the F-16s carry internally.
Not to mention back then it was a UFO as well that a lot of people complained about.
Early (first week or two) after that major the Gripen A was…uhm… yeah…
I flew, landed and repaired that.
Tbf you can do that with the Rafale and EFT, but not the Gripen
This was the source
1 Like
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