Hopefully gaijin implement Litening III from Tornado GR.4 instead Litening II after update dev server
For Swedish Air Force only, I think
But other operated never ordered GBU-39 SDB and GBU-49 Enhanced Paveway II
Do GR and IDS have the same RWR? I’m not sure how much they differ, but I’ve definitely come across information that they are not the same.
They are not, but only specifics of Gr RWR are known, so they are made after Gr.
Found this info:
(Ericsson Saab Avionics develops EW suite for Gripen)
(Electronic Warning System for Gripen - FMV signs contract with Saab)
(Saab wins 1 billion SEK order for Radar Warning Equipment for German Tornado aircraft)
Just gathering and collecting what i can find and posting it here if it helps some one else in their searches :)
So to sum up the thing we are doing rn.
RWR change, adding threat ID and extending it to C band.
Litening III
GBU 49
GBU 39
It seems Gaijin isn’t interested in giving Italian F-16ADF its actual missiles, since Italian community has demanded for this for quite a long time.
Although recent “passed to developers” reminded me about missiles I want more)
Maybe… Central Pylon already?
Its silly gaijin refuses stuff like this imo
Thats a feature long forgotten on the pages of time.
How are people suppose to file bug report this if most of that information is classified? Why did they need to change in the first place when Gaijin bends realism for the sake of balancing or implementation is an established doctrine in the game?
1 Like
Hey guys. We just wanted to clarify that the Gripen series currently has an older configurated RWR, the ALR-46. This is currently a known bug and we do plan to fix its configuration. Any reports with sources will also be accepted for review too.
6 Likes
@Gunjob @Necronomica I found proof that EWS-39 could be integrated without upgrading the RWR, Hungarian Defense Force Gripens continue to use the earlier RWR but have some other elements of the EWS-39 upgrade.
According to The Hungarian Military National Security Service
See page 83, translated;
Discussion of the BOL launchers I believe, still utilizing the AR830 RWR. It also appears to be discussing the possible import of multi-spectral flares.
Crisis averted.
The “data” for BOWS-21 I posted earlier was sourced from Janes though, as such cannot be used;
1 Like
Hi Smin could you clarify what is meant by this? Are you referring to the aircraft’s IRL HUD & cockpit displays?
Also do the Devs now require a complete list of threats the RWR can identify in real life? Or just proof that an RWR can identify a wide range of threats?
Hey.
Yes. Some aircraft display the threat ID differently on the RWR screen to what they display on the pilots HUD. In these cases, where we have this information, this will be modelled in game.
Currently both will be acceptable as reports. Providing there is some breakdown of what threat groups / pairings / identification the system offers.
That is all true, but we also know that the JAS39 upgraded from the AR830 to a newer RWR (assumed BOW-21) as per SAAB in 1999:
(Electronic Warning System for Gripen - FMV signs contract with Saab)
also
(https://mb.cision.com/wpyfs/00/00/00/00/00/00/AA/2D/bit0002.pdf)
“second generation” might just be jargon but it could also mena the second gen for JAS39.
Edit:
JAS-39C climb rate at sea level is underperforming by about 9 m/s. Real world claim is 254 m/s, in-game it is 245 m/s.
Top speed at sea level should be 1.15 mach.
Top speed at 10,500m should be 2.0 mach.
Flight Ceiling should be 18,513 meters, it is only 14,500m on the stat card in-game.
What is more interesting, it states that (presumably for the same scenario or conditions) the time to climb to 10,500m in the JAS39 is 100-120s compared to the MiG-29A’s 60 seconds.
In-game the JAS-39A climbs from mach 0.9 sea level to 10,500 meters in approximately 1 minute, 10 seconds. I don’t know the conditions for the climb, but I did so with full fuel and no missiles.
Wing loading appears similar for equal fuel load conditions to the MiG-29 at the weight given… suggesting the wing area given in-game is more or less correct.
Thrust to weight estimate is for “take off weight without armament”.
kg / kn converted to T/W: 0.94, compared to in-game this matches for static thrust to weight.
Fuel consumption rates are also given. So much to test and verify.
Yes, but Saab’s claims for altitude performance differ as well. It could be discussing the emergency maximum power settings or something. iirc Saab claimed 2 mach and then in another official documentation it was less than 2 mach.
That’s the “agressor” version, not the C version :) there are some differences.
Do we know what?