This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Yeah in practice it didnt have gun due to not allowed to fire, even Gunjob explained that for the first 2 years EFT coulndt use its own gun when it was operating which practically means it didnt had a usable gun. RAF pilot claims caused misunderstoodment in this case.
Now the real reason was different compare to RAF pilots jokes and claims but outcome was still the same, you just cant accept this fact, nothing more.
So it had a gun
A gun that had no changes made to it when it was cleared to service
A gun that cannot be used, nothing more than dead weight for the first couple years.
Fully functional
Hmmm trying to re write what was said
1 Like
At least try to read what he Said properly.
Quote from Gunjob: “ Maybe this is a misunderstanding of terms. It had a gun, it always had the gun, it just took a couple years to work up to its release to service. This happens pretty frequently with airframes that are “worked” up to an operational standard.”
Now his statement clearly explains that BK27 wasnt operational for first couple years which basically equals to not having gun in combat scenario.
Now i understand you’re having hard time to understand and accept the truth but sadly this is the reality.
The main reason why RAF pilots made jokes and testemants about how first operational EFT’s didnt have any gun was because it wasnt cleared to use for couple years.
Now i dont know what you think but to me having a gun that cannot be used during active combat is basically means having no gun.
It had a functional gun
Nothing was changed
Ticking a box saying it can be used operationally didn’t magically make all the guns in the Eurofighter work as they already did
The point is the plane was brand new and everything had to be cleared
Like all of it
And this was for the block 1 aircraft
Im already stating that i was corrected about “not having gun” myth.
While physically EFT always had gun but it wasnt operational for first couple years which in practice its equal to not having gun in active combat.
Seems to me you’re refusing to understand this basic thing which proves my point that you guys cant accept the truth and always try to claim bein right about everything.
2 Likes
Gripen was on parity with available documentation from credible sources in all aspects FM-wise except energy retention which was overperforming, and G limit, which is currently underperforming gaijin’s generally standard 1.5x multiplier for a platform’s IRL limit, after the initial few nerfs. Now Gripen is performing worse than even sources that have incredibly questionable provenance.
If you aim to take issue with it, perhaps comment on the part that was actually overperforming documentation and not the parts that were on par with documentation.
Just be very clear, Operational clearance is a slow process, in times of war there are emergency clearances. ADEN 25 didn’t have operational clearance for the Harrier GR7/T10/GR9 it did have emergency clearance.
Should a war have gone hot before the EFT had its operational clearance it would’ve gotten emergency clearance.
1 Like
Fair enough, as you’ve said situations can always change depending on scenario.
But this doesnt change the fact that EFT didnt had usable gun for couple years, like you mentioned.
Edit: When i said it didnt have usable gun i meant it wasnt operational due to not having clearence.
Sure that’s my bad, I was trying to address the claim it didn’t have a gun. But I could’ve been clearer. But yeah the situation is more nuanced than your typical pilot interview will allow for. Operational clearance is always more ideal because it means we’ve got all the process for using the weapon, maintaining the weapon, training on using the weapon etc etc all worked out. Emergency clearance is more akin to “put ammo in it, press this button to fire” ahaha.
5 Likes
Haha, more like: Pray and Spray :)