Gripen NG, not E , Not the same. The NG was the name for the overall project before the actual E design was finalized, at the beginning the NG was even a converted two seater D testbed.
2 Likes
Mmmmm then is there any other brochure that states the actual 39E’s weight?
Granted, the increase weight from slightly bigger frame, new engine and avionics would be expected but if there’s some slight number differences from the NG demonstrator vs JAS-39E, then maybe a counter bug report could be made.
I found this website listing the Gripen E/F having roughly 7200kg of empty mass
Though third party website though: JAS 39E/F Gripen Fighter Jet - Full Specifications | TheDefenseWatch.com
I’ve only found the one likely used in the report that you have also shown in this thread this one:
dev is closed, gripen e is dead, they didnt fixed anything except vws, what a great morning
It was always going to be killed. After reports with dubious sources got through, compounding them with misinterpreted documentation was always going to kill it.
1 Like
Which reports are you referring to?
Introduction of C, a source from a trial/offer (?) that contradicted other sources set their precedent they’ve held against Gripen as a family. I haven’t memory of it more clear than that, as I’ve had a somewhat eventful and miserable existence (lost home several times) outside of this to recall any further details. However, that has set the precedent for poor treatment of the Gripen platform, alongside a number of poorly (or not at all) documented nerfs to Gripens as a whole through the life span of the addition.
Just seems that after that point they’ve doubled down on not accepting reports that would favour the platform yet followed the precedent outlined to take all the bad ones. Changes that nerf the platform with sound documentation aren’t bad in and of themselves, good documentation and following it is good. But they don’t really seem to care for the nature of the documentation if it suits the narrative of kneecapping it, yet it must be deemed impossibly true before it is resolved for a positive change.
I think i know what source you are referring to, unfortunately it is basically a primary source. So even if some data is “incorrect” (quotes because i don’t think there is any real way for us to know unless there are SAAB sources that say otherwise, and then those sources could be used for a report to correct it anyway so) it will override any secondary sources. Which just makes sense in general terms.
Oof, sad to hear. :/ I hope things are/will get better!
1 Like
At this point it would be amusing to have ended up in such a series of events to have lost it this many times in such a short span, were it not so inconvenient.
I do believe there were a number of contradictory primary sources to it that went ignored. But I haven’t the care to re-litigate it, they’ve a fascination with the document that will kneecap any attempts to provide better sources. Which sadly goes for a good many things in game. They tend to find documents that end up surpassed but they cling to them as though the sky would fall would it be abandoned.
So they instantly nerfed with weight (whether its accurate or not) while still not fixing RWR on Gripen platforms for almost 2 years or not even checking time to climb/high altitude performance.
Yea thanks Gaijin your selective realism is so appreciated…
2 Likes
I’m not aware of any RWR issues on the A and C versions, do you have a link to a report?
They did however add VWS which have been reported very long ago so that is at least something.
As i understand it they also did some changes to drag and engine efficiency so that the acceleration up until 800km/h stays the same and between 800km/h and 1500km/h the acceleration is better than before (even with the new weight increase). Not entirely certain on this though.
I already linked the report that affects all C versions and E models that was reported 2 years ago.
Same report that Gunjob bumped, remember?
Did they? Well at least not everything is L.
Hopefully VikoHusky will make it pretty realistic like he did with other VWS on his mod.
If its on sea level only then it doesnt matter that much because Gripen’s weakest problem is the time to climb to high altitude and acceleration on those alts, iirc to this day its still wrong and was discusses long time ago.
Ah, the K band one, i only remembered the spherical coverage one.
I only tested the C and E on dev but both had VWS there at least.
Since it’s drag and efficiency it sill depend on altitude, no idea to what degree it changes with altitude though, and i’m hesitant to trust data mines in general as they come VERY early, often aren’t final and straight values like that can be missleading.
Someone posted about it previously in this thread:
Which is crucial on these days against modern SPAA systems, cant believe they still refusing to fix this simple code change even after 2 years.
Nice then, was expecting for a long time.
Same, I’m also skeptical when it comes to these datamines, lets see if Gaijin will also add flap system to Gripen E in anytime soon.
The Gripen series of jets has been nerfed into oblivion since its introduction into the game. Since the introduction of the Gripen-E jet around 6 months ago, the top-tier air RB competitiveness for Sweden has been somewhat alright–not the best jet, but definitely not the worst.
However, with the upcoming dev server updates adding around ~600kg of empty weight with only a minor increase in thrust, this means that the Gripen-E (a jet already much heavier than the Gripen-A/C variants) will be absolutely incapable of holding its own in a 1v1 dogfight.
As of current, the Gripen-E struggles to dogfight Rafales, Eurofighters, and SU-30s, with it only being able to reliably kill F-15s and F-18s in a close-in engagement/energy fight. With the continued airframe and drag coefficient nerfs to the Gripen, I believe there should be many better ways to balance a plane rather than repeatedly and artificially nerfing the plane into the ground.
I hope this thread is able to gain some traction.
1 Like
The only thing to blame is bug reporters for doing their job.
Gaijin for introducing the Gripen E in an over-performing state to begin with.
Your post is claiming SAAB is lying at the end… wild.
Gaijin does not & has never balanced vehicles by means other than BR & historical weapons.
So your post is calling SAAB liars.
4 Likes
You can join the discussion about JAS39E here: ( SAAB JAS 39E/F Gripen - General discussion )
The change wasn’t a “nerf” , it was a correction to an incorrect weight based on a primary source.
Vehicles in the game are generally not “nerfed” or “buffed” in that sense of the word. They are corrected to more closely align with IRL capabilities and data. There are of course exceptions as some things are subject to balance (such as munitions or if a vehicle received an upgrade later on in service it might not get it in-game).
6 Likes
Not entirely correct, they can also chose not a to add specific changes that were made later in service or add munitions based on technical feasibility even if the specific version of the vehicle never used those munitions IRL (JAS39C and E being a prime examples with the AGM-65G for example).
3 Likes
either bait or a massive skill issue
1 Like