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?
https://www.fmv.se/projekt/jas-39-gripen/mer-fakta-om-jas-39-gripen/
Swedish defense materiell administration, SAAB’s own site also claims mach 2 fwiw. I’m pretty busy today but maybe later I can look through some of my sources
Isn’t the aggressor just a 39C tailored for aggressor role? Marketed för the Americans
I think the most helpful thing pertaining to the RWR report would be photos and videos of the RWR alerting to information.
Best i can give is the simulator. It can be see that RWR has IFF, and that it display targets with their names, but as it ia a public sim, it just names things: “SAM” and “Threat”
Also shows missing VWS.
if we know that there are differences between aggressor and C version?
When I looked through some of the air forces videos researching the MFD’s, they had blurred out specifically the RWR’s IIRC. I can look again
This article originally appeared in the June issue of the South African edition of Popular Mechanics magazine;
Top speed 1,400 km/h at sea level (1.13-1.14 mach)
2 mach at altitude.
100 seconds from wheels off to 10,000m
180 seconds from wheels off to 14,000m
It states that it can supercruise at high altitude, but does not give any more details than that. This indicates it should not be possible to supercruise at low altitudes, right? I think I recall someone saying it could.
What are the differences?
I am testing the time to climb, even with a very inefficient route was just 93 seconds from wheels off to 10,000m. The aircraft seems to be overperforming in this regard although I am not sure what would be the cause of that yet be engine thrust too high at higher altitudes or what.
It was not possible to reach 14,000m in a timely manner at all however. An additional 80 seconds is insufficient. The engine thrust seems to be underperforming at such altitudes and it cannot possibly reach the real world service ceiling of 18km+ in-game.
@Gunjob Sorry for so many pings today. Do you think this is worth a report?
Found a video we needed
Shows, even to they are static, RWR with Threat ID, Tactical maps with Threats and their ID, and the Radar with the Targets
Oh i don’t know specifics, but SAAB states “Gripen Aggressor är baserad på det beprövade stridsflygplansystemet Gripen C men har anpassats för aggressorrollen.” (roughly translates to "based on the tried and tested fighter plane Gripen C but has been adapted/adjusted for the aggressor role).
(Saab presenterar Gripen Aggressor).
Well, agressor does not differ at all most of the time, i would just susppect it has some electronics tweak that can force it to show up as enemy.
Should be able to show up as “redfor” rather than true “enemy” generally but yeah that’s just me being nitpicky about the worldplay there.
Wow
