Yeah, I’ve seen the 2022 engine upgrade order - probably not relevant for war thunder since I haven’t seen completion of the upgrade? I could be wrong
Here’s an article citing SAAB at that conference in 2011 “When it comes to the thrust produced, the aim is an increase of 2% to 15%, depending on customer requirement.”
“We have stated previously that it is possible to significantly increase the thrust of the existing RM12 engine at a very competitive cost. We will then have a more powerful and economical engine. It also means that we can upgrade the 220 engines that the Air Force already has whilst maintaining engine competence within country,” says Henrik Runnemalm, Head of Research at Volvo Aero.”
I don’t see why y’all couldn’t get the enhanced JAS 39C ahead of the JAS 39E, whatever you guys think would be better for the tech tree since it seems both are going to be happening.
But there is no time limit when devs must act. “He is essentially saying let me nerf your jet and then I will submit a report after”.
They have made changes and taken month to revert or correct. Some never happening.
If his concerns are legitimate. I say make it clear IN the initial report that drag may be altered to give the Devs a heads up and make their jobs easier. That is a more than reasonable option.
Go ahead nerf away. But make it clear to the devs such suggestions will have foreseeable ramifications.
Yes, but devs get tied down with the following business quarter and things get put on the backburner all the time. Just like in every industry ever.
I am sure you can relate
They hype of this jet will surely die eventually and more content will be at the forefront of controversy. None of you can guarantee that “unintentional alterations” can easily be reverted.
“Trust me bro, I will submit a report” is a new amusing one, I do have to say.
PD tracking on the gripen seems to be rather poor. The skyflashes, which arent even the dogfight variant are basically worthless, and are copy pastes of the AIM-7E with the very long delay to start manuvering.
Lock shifts to chaff easily even when the tagrget has a 600m/s approach velocity and the missile is very suceptible to countermeasures. Missiles don’t track correctly unless the target is basically static and can miss even when the target flies ina straight line.
Locked targets in look up will dissapear from lock regularly.
Maybe the Tornado F.3 with Supertemps has spoiled me but I was hoping to be able to make use of the missiles in clutch heads ons, but apparently not.
This is with locking on with TWS or PD HDN Mode.
I rarely used the ACM on the tornado except the vertical ACM to get high aspect launches when truning in.
The track is still “PD TRACK”
Are you getting kills with the Skyflash further than 10km? That is actually impressive I only use them for dogfighting since they burn out very quickly and drastically lose energy.
I only use them for close range head ons. Very deadly.
Nah, all enagements are more than 2km, but less than 6km typically.
Problem is that any launch under 4km the missile doesnt start its guidance untill its too late and then the missile massively undershoots its target.
Any launch more than 4km the missle goes stupid even in optimal conditions.
So far I have only managed to get kills against planes that have stalled out.
With the supertemps I can launch up to 20km and still get kills semi reliably or even as low as 2km and they find their mark almost always.
No it does not, it cant reach speeds at sea level it was able to pre nerf, let alone new rip speed. Its pretty far from old max speed limit too. If it stayed same, nothing would change as you cant reach it in level flight.
That comparison is the closest we have, and it isn’t even a bad one at that. The Gripen and Mirage 2000 should act very similarly with the Mirage 2000 having a higher T/W and lower wing loading… but otherwise higher wing sweep angle of 58 vs 52 degrees for the Gripen.
Unstable designs need to pitch the nose down, solve the delta issue of trim drag. What further similarities do you need to understand how these aircraft are similar? Are we going to ignore the fact that they suggested the Mirage 2000 is a gen3 delta?
The Gripen has negative static stability provided by the canards, when they deflect they make it positively stable or neutrally stable. This is because when they lose lift, the CoL moves rearword… rather simple thing to understand. Also, due to having a Canard to provide airflow over the wing at high angles of attack the leading edge flaps are not necessary on the inboard side of the wing. The dog tooth works to act like a simplified double leading edge flap, even having two specific actuators to help push the flap out but otherwise being a simplified system to save on weight and complexity… relying more heavily on the canard.
The Mirage 2000, also negatively stable is unable to recover from pitch-out departures as easily because it has no method of becoming suddenly neutrally stable as the Gripen does. Otherwise, the leading edge flap system is a little more complex and likely a little better off than the Gripen for transonic and supersonic flight thanks to the more complex leading edge flap system. They can be differentially deflected when needed to develop the same vortices and control as the dogtooth.
Overall the two designs are extremely similar, function in practically the same exact way… but the Gripen has forward trim surfaces as well as rear trim surfaces… and has a method of becoming neutrally stable. What is most interesting is that the Gripen compromised in certain areas in an attempt to improve subsonic maneuvering performance whereas the Mirage 2000 focused solely on supersonic energy maneuverability. Both are 4th gen designs, both incorporate all of the same advancements but to put it simply…
The Gripen chose canards, the Mirage 2000 chose a more complex leading edge flap system. The two are totally comparable in all other regards.
Gripen only has one droop flap per wing. The Gripens leading edges are DRASTICALLY different. The droops flap does not cover the entire wing like the M2k. Neither does the M2k have a leading-edge dog tooth extension.
Flaperons of the M2k do not tapers and blends into the fuselage like that of the Gripen
WRONG.
the M2K is a purely a delta wing the Gripen is not. Nor does the M2k have massive controllable foreword wings called canards.
IRRELEVANT
Single vertical tail? You mean a vertical stabilizer? Like an F-16 and almost literally all single engine fighters?
