1: Your sources are hidden from the public. 2: The entire theme of the recent Abrams armor debacle was that they aren’t actually picky about sources, they only claim to be when it favors the Russians. All sources for the Abrams armor were really good, but they don’t want to hurt the Russians so they claim the sources aren’t reliable but when a YouTube video of a “T-90M” (published before the T-90M even existed) shows a spall liner they are completely fine with adding this spall liner. The same goes for accepting your bug report that has sources that don’t even mention the RM12 or Gripen once.
One moment you say that it doesn’t matter if max thrust without A/B actually matters to anyone, it is realism that matters (which isn’t even true, go play DCS if you want realism) and in the next moment you say that I should be happy for this max speed without A/B (despite that you agreed that it is irrelevant???)
Your consensus is a heavily biased one based solely on some emotional evocation from which I don’t understand. The the sources I used all mention the Gripen and explain not only with words but photos and graphs how the F404-GE-400 and it’s iterations modified the engine.
It is irrelevant, but it ended up being a buff so you should be happy? I never changed my opinion. Those are two entirely different points and I stand by them. Such an unusual thing to argue about.
You know, I’m not even sure why you’re here complaining anyway. You don’t really have a point it just seems like a bunch of useless whining because you perceived something as a nerf when it was the opposite. You didn’t even bother reading the report, clearly.
Yea AMAZING xD like all the left side is just a open field with nothing to cover and NOW you just can spawn camp on those new spawn points from old A point xD AMAZING
Stop pretending like this was a buff, the consensus among everyone I’ve talked to is that it is performing worse and this makes sense as your report literally states that the engine was overperforming. The report led to the Gripen having slightly more thrust below 750 km/h at sea level and a fairly huge reduction in thrust at speeds above 750 km/h or altitudes above sea level.
You have several sources that do not mention the Gripen in your reports asking for it to be nerfed. In the one regarding the RM12, you gave sources for the F404-GE-400 mounted on the F/A-18 which is irrelevant for the JAS 39 A and JAS 39 C performance.
The Gripen does not have the upper hand in any fight against those jets except the F-16A since it only carries AIM-9L and no HMD, but the F-16A makes up for that by having the best turn rate in the game and one of the best radar missiles.
This is the problem with Gaijin using game statistics to buff and nerf jets. I don’t think it is crazy to assume that the average Sweden and Britain player is better than the average US or USSR main considering that Sweden and Britain haven’t had good top-tier jets for years (*so the bad Sweden and Britan mains have probably left or switched nations out of frustration, and the ones that stayed had to be better at dogfighting to compete with MIG-29’s and F-16’s), so when they get competing jets the statistics show that they perform better. Additionally, a lot of US and USSR mains are just normal people who think the F-14 is cool because of top gun or maybe they heard the “104-0” and now want an F-15 so they buy a few premiums to get to top tier.
We have already agreed that max speed or max thrust without A/B is irrelevant. No one flies without A/B unless in a jet that consumes a lot of fuel (not the JAS 39). The max speed is reduced and the thrust (aka acceleration) is reduced at all altitudes above sea level and all speeds above 750 km/h, this is definitely an overall nerf.
My other points made have also been referring to several other reports by MIG_23M that ask for a Gripen nerf but use sources that aren’t actually relevant.
*Correction: The top speed is reduced at altitudes around sea level to around 2000 meters and increased above 2000 meters
This is simply not true. The Gripen can easily tear itself apart in level flight with a full kit of missiles and 30min of fuel at an altitude of 4000m and above. It couldn’t do any of this yesterday.
A report with one source that gives no mention of the Gripen and one that compares the Gripen to the Viggen without actually giving any statistics or analytics.
You have nothing of value to add. If you have information that contradicts my reports please share.
My reports have sources, you just can’t see them. Not for you to decide anyway.
The Gripen walks the dog on pretty much any plane that is not the F-16A. The F-15A has no chance in a 1 v 1 against it, and the only thing the Su-27 can hope for is a lucky HMD shot with R-73 and that the seeker head doesn’t get flared.
I would offer to let you come and try to prove your point but from the looks of things…you have never even played anything outside of Sweden…so it would be kind of pointless to take your input on how other peoples planes perform.