- Yes
- No
Hey everyone. Let’s be honest, the 13.0 - 14.3 BR bracket is a completely different game now. While nations like France, China, the US, and Russia are getting their absolute top-of-the-line ordnance, the JAS 39 Gripen E feels like it’s being artificially held back.
I want to break down why the Gripen E desperately needs its historical and technically capable loadout just to stay competitive in this crazy meta.
1. The R-73 Spam and the Need for IRIS-T
Right now, the short-range dogfight meta is completely ruled by thrust-vectoring HOBS missiles. We are seeing the R-73 spammed absolutely everywhere—on the German MiG-29G (13.0), the UK premium MiG-21 Bison (12.3), the Japanese Su-30MKM (14.3), and the Chinese premium Su-30MKK (13.3).
Meanwhile, the Gripen E is stuck with the Rb 74(M). Using an AIM-9M equivalent against an R-73 in a dogfight is just a bad joke. The Gripen E’s primary WVR missile is the IRIS-T, which features thrust-vectoring and 60+ G pull. If the R-73 is allowed to proliferate across multiple tech trees and premiums, holding back the IRIS-T from a state-of-the-art 4.5+ gen fighter makes zero sense.
2. BVR Powercreep and the Meteor / Derby argument
BVR combat has moved on. France and China are currently dominating with the MICA EM. The game also features the AIM-120D for the US/UK/China and the R-77-1 for Russia.
The Gripen E was literally designed around the MBDA Meteor. But let’s say Gaijin thinks the Meteor’s ramjet is “too OP” for the game right now. Fine. Then at the very least, they should give it the Derby missile (which is fully integrated into the Brazilian F-39 Gripen E). In War Thunder, the Derby feels significantly more reliable than the C-5. Which brings me to my next point…
3. The AIM-120C-5 is a joke on this airframe
Let’s talk about the absolute absurdity of the Gripen E’s current “top” BVR missile. Due to WT’s current drag and kinematic modeling, the AIM-120C-5 often feels like a downgrade compared to the older AIM-120A (Rb 99).
Some might argue, “But the Eurofighter uses the C-5 just fine!” Yeah, because the Eurofighter has insane brute-force kinematics, a better radar, and carries more of them. The Eurofighter can push the C-5 to a high starting energy state. The Gripen doesn’t have that raw engine power to compensate for the C-5’s flawed in-game flight model. Forcing the Gripen E to rely on a crippled C-5 is just painful.
4. It’s time for SEAD/DEAD (Anti-Radiation Missiles)
A lot of people claim the Gripen’s SEAD capability is “just EW and jammers.” That’s simply not true. Here are the facts and sources:
- The Hardware: The official Saab website explicitly lists SEAD systems. The Arexis EW suite and the Raven ES-05 AESA radar work together as an advanced ESM system to pinpoint SPAA radars and feed that data directly to the weapons. You can’t DEAD (Destroy Enemy Air Defenses) a Pantsir with a jammer; you need kinetic Anti-Radiation Missiles (ARMs).
- The Documents: The Swedish Armed Forces’ 2031–2035 procurement plan explicitly includes the acquisition of ARMs for the Gripen E fleet.
- AI Integration for SEAD/DEAD: Saab is already testing the Centaur AI agent on the Gripen E specifically to handle complex SEAD/DEAD sorties.
- The WT Rule of Cool: Gaijin has always operated on the “technical capability” rule. The Gripen E uses the NATO-standard MIL-STD-1760 databus. It is plug-and-play ready for Western ARMs today. If the Yak-141 and the paper F-16AJ get a pass, the Gripen E shouldn’t be penalized just because Swedish warehouses are waiting for their deliveries.
Conclusion
Top-tier balance requires parity. To actually compete with 120Ds, R-77-1s, MICA EMs, and R-73s, the Gripen E needs to be un-nerfed. Give it the IRIS-T, the Meteor (or at least the Derby!), and ARMs for Ground Battles.
Let me know what you guys think below, and don’t forget to vote in the poll!