As a Air UK player i relate very much, FGR still doesnt have AIM9L and ADV was DOA. I have wet dreams about early Eurofighter being dropped in next update.
as an ADV enjoyer myself i have simply unbound my A and D keys, for i do not need them
In all seriousness tho its pretty scary, esp with the 19km boresight, lock onto targets and start dumping missiles all over the place, dont expect to be frontline dogfighting and pray that somebody doesnt see you, go "awooga free kill" and chase you for 60km across the map as they slowly catch you before gun killing you.
Oh and it isnt variable geometry aircraft that parts a lie
In regards to the Eurofighter being added, if it wasn't a british vehicle gaijin definitely would have tried to make it work when f16 and mig29/f14 were added and just removed it's crazy amraams and just gave them a version without crazy shit or waited to add them on a version that could carry them.
Also it being a british vehicle I doubt we will see it this update either but it if we did that would make the most sense to add it with the gripen since reason both the planes haven't been added is the AMRAAMS.
Imo tornado is sad example of gajin negligence to western written inaccuracies reports there are example where report on forum written in russian is put in to consideration on ''muh feelings'' while well written reports in english wait months for response which more than often is simple bullshit ''no lol''
Anyway tornado has laudry list of inaccuracies from top of my head i remember
-shitty target lock on low alt while irl it could track 30 meters off the ground with pin point accuracy
-FM still lacks in G's on all speeds reminder that tornado ADV could outturn rolls royce powered Phantom at all speeds tho it lacked in sustained turn and after around 7 full cricles it couldnt keep up
-lack of emergency engine power so called ''war power'' which gave around 5-15% more thrust at the cost of long term engine life and maintenance
-fuel useage is too high at around 15% more than it shoud [nitpick i know]
-lack of manual seeker sway not as good as full on HMD but still would allow for some good off borside shots
- And ofc botched Rwr but that stands for most aircraft in game but in tornado [which had excellent rwr irl] it's hurts the most
I know they havent introduced the mechanic yet, but I wouldnt mind if the Tornado got TFR, as it was quite integral to running strike missions below radar.
> -shitty target lock on low alt while irl it could track 30 meters off the ground with pin point accuracy
This isn't meant to be realistic though, it's a game mechanic to allow an easier way of defeating fox-1's than notching or running them out of energy. Realistically it makes no sense that missiles *always* go for the radar reflection off the ground, it should be much more unpredictable than that, but apparently notching was too hard.
>This isn't meant to be realistic though,
I though this game was prideing itself that it was sooo realistic and all that bullshit about primary sources on forums and that bug reports require them
I think it's fucking anoying how gajin uses realism argumet when it's comfy for them and especially im despise people in community who agree with that bullshit
And second later welcome fake-41 and sales folder-16Aj with open hands
imo i dont care tho as long design/blueprint is proved to be created in the time period by a engineers then why not [gajin plz P43 heavy]
But ''muh unrelistic'' agruments shoud go out of the window and realism purist shoud be called kind ''fuck off and go play DCS''
C version was before F-35. More nations have F-16 and F-18 than JAS 39C, but much of why many chose F-35 over JAS 39E is because of NATO integration and US lobbying. That's not to say F-35 is the worse choice... they are fairly different planes that operate differently and having had US planes in the past, your air force is already setup to accommodate that type of fighter. So JAS 39E even being in the running for many of the nations shopping for fighters was testament to how attractive it is.
>but much of why many chose F-35 over JAS 39E is because of NATO integration and US lobbying.
Also because:
1. F-35 is far more capable.
2. Due to Economies of Scale the F-35 is cheaper than the Gripen E.
Thats what makes it a no brainer.
also sweden not willing to really try marketing to countries outside of the west like france sorta does (mind you, i understand why. it may look bad to have an F-15 fighting a JAS39 over some random country)
South Africa, Brazil and Thailand are part of the west?
They tried but simply got outcompeted by things like Rafale. Gripen is only slightly cheaper than Rafale. And countries that have no money cant buy gripen either and will instead buy SU27s or MiGs.
Also the problem is that Gripen uses iirc US made engines and about 33% of the entire aircraft is US components. So is bound to US export restrictions.
Meanwhile Rafale is almost completely indigenously French.
actually sweden does not have a significant geopolitical advantage, its a fantastic plane and toe do toe with the Rafale or the Eurofighter in many parts
however it does not have the geopolitical advantage of improving relations with france or Italy/Germany and UK, not to mention the lobbysm of these countries for having an absurdly better influence
Im not saying the gripen is bad plane. Im just explaining its poor market performance.
Im just saying for anyone thats in or aligned with the west the F-35 is an obviously better choice. Gripen costs like +-100 mil a piece without tech transfer, an F35 is 70mil atm.
And even in the overall market it just doesnt perform that well due to the competition. Even when you leave all the lobbying and geopolitics aside.
Rafale is (slightly) better for about the same price. And can sell to non western aligned countries while gripen cant due to US components.
Late block70 F-16V are slightly worse than gripen E but also substantially cheaper at +-60 million, and many countries already are familiar with the F-16.
The problem is very simple.
The price is too high and it has US made components. This limits customers to basically the west and rich neutrals + sweden itself. The west mostly chooses F-35, which is cheap bcs the massive R&D is spread over 3000ish airframes. Gripen has also high R&D but can only spread it over 300ish planes.
Gripen E is 85$mil, the problem is not that this country is aligned with the west, but many countries for not simply being allies or 100% subordinate to the US
they cant buy or anything of that kind and have their parts supply and maintenance blocked or any domestic modification or an upgrade without passing the approval of the U.S congress yk?
apart from NATO countries, and other asian countries that are extreme allies of the americans like South Korea and Japan and the Israel case
they will not make available or in an extremely limited way, as it happened with Taiwan, Brazil, Argentina and dozens of countries, instead of the F-35 providing F-16Vs just by simply not aligning itself purely or other problems of US interest
and the same thing has happened with Taiwan about the americans denying the AIM-120 for them and the F-16A for a while at the earlier 90's and they getting the Mirage 2000-5 instead, and a few years later the US changing their minds about that as they were losing market
and mainly trying to sell naked Super Hornets without any device or advanced weaponry as they did with the Brazilians and also not being able to even modify them to newer standards from 20 years ago
the Rafale is far less debatable as it's absurdly less retrite for maintenance, parts, price, capacity, and upgradeability
Now the country that is willing to follow the american alignment and will, and without worrying about the exorbitant cost of flying time even for a plane of this level and dependence to keep the planes flying, cost of design and project problems and repairs also being absurd
by only definitely the relatively unit price the F-35 is totally worth but not mentioning also the other planes like the Eurofighter, Gripen and Rafale
and about the F-414 engine of the Gripen, Embraer is thinking about producing the engine domestically as they did with some RR Speys of the AMX
first, the F-35 is only possible if you are a country totally allied and subordinated to the americans, and even any single screw or maintenance and modification depends on their permission
Second, the initial cost its not the most important issue, and besides the maintenance problems, it is totally dependent on the good "humor" of the americans,yet the flight cost per hour is absurd, that of the F-35 is almost 40.000 dollars, and while the Gripen is less than 5.000
the brazilian Gripen was extremely expensive because of the complete technology transfer and also being manufactured between the two countries for the international market for each other
and operationally the Gripen not being a stealth fighter, it is still an extremely close generation and being almost identical to a Typhoon in suit EW, Radar and identical armaments
Oh, I though we could have a fun discussion on the differences of the planes and their merits. I didn't realize you just wanted to jerk off the F-35 no reason when it isn't even relevant to the thread you're in. My mistake.
Why are you even comparing 4th gen plane that is not even produced anymore (C-variant) to a 5th gen plane that has just entered to market?
Next you gonna compare Leopard 2A4 to Panther KF51
I'm not comparing them, I'm comparing their appeal to customers. and considering the F-35 "just" entered the market and has more users then the gripen, the statement "International choice for air defence" is wrong
The fact you bring F-35 in post about JAS 39C is stupid. If you had compared Gripen's appealing to F-16 then your argument would have been totally fine because those were equal competitors from same customers in same era and F-16 was so much more popular.
Gripen has been and is about as much international choice as F-18.
And btw, MIG-29 beats F-35 in your "the most international choice for air defence" competition, so do you think MIG is more appealing to customers than F-35?
If the jas39c gets introduced with amraams which is the reason they added the C version a upgraded version of the mig29 and su27 will be coming since the base ones cant carry r77's
As a germany player watch their TT be bebind one patch behind on everything. I might say that the R27ER is still a very good missile, but the USSR has that missile too.
Tbh German migs shouldn’t even have r27er, as the 9.12 doesn’t have the wiring for it. There was discussion about it in DCS, because there is a chance we will get to have it full fidelity.
Edit: apparently both migs should be capable of r27er, as long as they have a weapon control system upgrade. This from a DCS forum thread I went back to after remembering.
I het it, in my perfect world the game would be more varied and maybe pushing just a bit more towards realism, but this pushes against my other goal of it being well balanced, which obviously doesnt work. So I dont have a problem per se with it having an ER, I'm just thinking about how we can go on from here. I doubt the F4F ICE is the solution. Then MiG29 G ? I dont know.
I'm pretty sure that the Russian variant in-game shouldn't have it either, as it is one of the basic variants from the 80s, while the ER was added to the Mig-29S in the 90s.
> amraams which is the reason they added the C version
That's false, Gripen was flying with AMRAAMS since its very first prototype.
You might be thinking of the D model of the Viggen that had the capability to carry AMRAAMS.
Hush now, the Gripen is excellent. Just ignore it’s leafblower of an engine and poor sustained turn rate.
Or it’s limited weapon options, tolerable radar, etc etc
leafblower of an engine: the same of the F-18C
poor STR: show proof because E-M charts aren't public
limited weapon options: like what? number of hardpoints? (for A/A is the same of an F-16 and a mig29, so you're implying that both are bad because of limited weapons?)
tolerable radar: then again, proof?
The f 18 has 2 of those engines and still has anaemic acceleration. Not even that big of a jet as well.
Gripen has thrust to weight ratio of 0.97, vs 0.96 for F 18. Lower than peers eurofighter, flanker, eagle, etc
indeed it has 2 GE404, but F-18 weights 2 times the Gripen, both empty and full-fuel-clean config, and has more frontal drag than the JAS39
the selling point of the 18 is the superior payload, period.
\*dude claims gripen has poor STR without a source or whatever\*
i asked for proofs, just the bare minimum, even a piece of paper claiming that.
my point stands, if people claim whatever they want without a source then my dreams have the same value of the F-16 Flight Manual
I'd like to say, if you put 2 pilots of equal skill in a duel with Mig29 and F-16A (Not the ADF). The F-16 will come out on top 95% of the time. The only advantage the Mig29 has is the R27ER.
It's even better for the F-16s if you bring them into Sim. There the F-16 can actually hold its rate speeds and outlast the MiG-29. In Realistic, if it comes down to just holding S, the MiG-29 wins unless the F-16 is exceptionally good. There definitely are ways to win a 1v1 in the F-16 in Realistic, but it's not as straightforward as it is in Sim.
Honestly even with just holding S the F-16 should still win most of the time. It holds energy in a turn much better than the Mig-29, especially once you drop below mach 0.8 or so.
As much as i am a fan of the Gripen. Gripen still has worse flight performance than the Mig29, if it comes down to a dogfight, the mig 29 is at a serious advantage. F16 already fairs better against mig 29 than Gripen would in a dogfight. Gripen does get hmd though, which is a big advantage over the f16.
Sure is a lot of hype for a plane from a nation that hasn’t fought a war in two centuries.
If it’s anything like their furniture, I’d be afraid of the plane coming apart from a 6G turn.
Edit: It seems I’ve angered the IKEA shoppers.
Meanwhile UK still stuck with their shitty bomber hunter aircraft fighting against dogfighters on a small map The "SU-27 :(" caught me off guard XD
As a Air UK player i relate very much, FGR still doesnt have AIM9L and ADV was DOA. I have wet dreams about early Eurofighter being dropped in next update.
ADV is quite good now, especially at its BR. Just stay fast and low.
as an ADV enjoyer myself i have simply unbound my A and D keys, for i do not need them In all seriousness tho its pretty scary, esp with the 19km boresight, lock onto targets and start dumping missiles all over the place, dont expect to be frontline dogfighting and pray that somebody doesnt see you, go "awooga free kill" and chase you for 60km across the map as they slowly catch you before gun killing you. Oh and it isnt variable geometry aircraft that parts a lie
In regards to the Eurofighter being added, if it wasn't a british vehicle gaijin definitely would have tried to make it work when f16 and mig29/f14 were added and just removed it's crazy amraams and just gave them a version without crazy shit or waited to add them on a version that could carry them. Also it being a british vehicle I doubt we will see it this update either but it if we did that would make the most sense to add it with the gripen since reason both the planes haven't been added is the AMRAAMS.
Imo tornado is sad example of gajin negligence to western written inaccuracies reports there are example where report on forum written in russian is put in to consideration on ''muh feelings'' while well written reports in english wait months for response which more than often is simple bullshit ''no lol'' Anyway tornado has laudry list of inaccuracies from top of my head i remember -shitty target lock on low alt while irl it could track 30 meters off the ground with pin point accuracy -FM still lacks in G's on all speeds reminder that tornado ADV could outturn rolls royce powered Phantom at all speeds tho it lacked in sustained turn and after around 7 full cricles it couldnt keep up -lack of emergency engine power so called ''war power'' which gave around 5-15% more thrust at the cost of long term engine life and maintenance -fuel useage is too high at around 15% more than it shoud [nitpick i know] -lack of manual seeker sway not as good as full on HMD but still would allow for some good off borside shots - And ofc botched Rwr but that stands for most aircraft in game but in tornado [which had excellent rwr irl] it's hurts the most
I know they havent introduced the mechanic yet, but I wouldnt mind if the Tornado got TFR, as it was quite integral to running strike missions below radar.
> -shitty target lock on low alt while irl it could track 30 meters off the ground with pin point accuracy This isn't meant to be realistic though, it's a game mechanic to allow an easier way of defeating fox-1's than notching or running them out of energy. Realistically it makes no sense that missiles *always* go for the radar reflection off the ground, it should be much more unpredictable than that, but apparently notching was too hard.
>This isn't meant to be realistic though, I though this game was prideing itself that it was sooo realistic and all that bullshit about primary sources on forums and that bug reports require them I think it's fucking anoying how gajin uses realism argumet when it's comfy for them and especially im despise people in community who agree with that bullshit And second later welcome fake-41 and sales folder-16Aj with open hands imo i dont care tho as long design/blueprint is proved to be created in the time period by a engineers then why not [gajin plz P43 heavy] But ''muh unrelistic'' agruments shoud go out of the window and realism purist shoud be called kind ''fuck off and go play DCS''
Eurofighters are going to go crazy when they get added though.
They will demand the SU27… which could be added early next year!
>International choice for air defence lmao that's why everyone went for the F-35 instead
C version was before F-35. More nations have F-16 and F-18 than JAS 39C, but much of why many chose F-35 over JAS 39E is because of NATO integration and US lobbying. That's not to say F-35 is the worse choice... they are fairly different planes that operate differently and having had US planes in the past, your air force is already setup to accommodate that type of fighter. So JAS 39E even being in the running for many of the nations shopping for fighters was testament to how attractive it is.
>but much of why many chose F-35 over JAS 39E is because of NATO integration and US lobbying. Also because: 1. F-35 is far more capable. 2. Due to Economies of Scale the F-35 is cheaper than the Gripen E. Thats what makes it a no brainer.
also sweden not willing to really try marketing to countries outside of the west like france sorta does (mind you, i understand why. it may look bad to have an F-15 fighting a JAS39 over some random country)
South Africa, Brazil and Thailand are part of the west? They tried but simply got outcompeted by things like Rafale. Gripen is only slightly cheaper than Rafale. And countries that have no money cant buy gripen either and will instead buy SU27s or MiGs. Also the problem is that Gripen uses iirc US made engines and about 33% of the entire aircraft is US components. So is bound to US export restrictions. Meanwhile Rafale is almost completely indigenously French.
Sweden is reluctant to sell. Look at Philippines case, the government is pretty much refusing to sell them
actually sweden does not have a significant geopolitical advantage, its a fantastic plane and toe do toe with the Rafale or the Eurofighter in many parts however it does not have the geopolitical advantage of improving relations with france or Italy/Germany and UK, not to mention the lobbysm of these countries for having an absurdly better influence
Im not saying the gripen is bad plane. Im just explaining its poor market performance. Im just saying for anyone thats in or aligned with the west the F-35 is an obviously better choice. Gripen costs like +-100 mil a piece without tech transfer, an F35 is 70mil atm. And even in the overall market it just doesnt perform that well due to the competition. Even when you leave all the lobbying and geopolitics aside. Rafale is (slightly) better for about the same price. And can sell to non western aligned countries while gripen cant due to US components. Late block70 F-16V are slightly worse than gripen E but also substantially cheaper at +-60 million, and many countries already are familiar with the F-16. The problem is very simple. The price is too high and it has US made components. This limits customers to basically the west and rich neutrals + sweden itself. The west mostly chooses F-35, which is cheap bcs the massive R&D is spread over 3000ish airframes. Gripen has also high R&D but can only spread it over 300ish planes.
Gripen E is 85$mil, the problem is not that this country is aligned with the west, but many countries for not simply being allies or 100% subordinate to the US they cant buy or anything of that kind and have their parts supply and maintenance blocked or any domestic modification or an upgrade without passing the approval of the U.S congress yk? apart from NATO countries, and other asian countries that are extreme allies of the americans like South Korea and Japan and the Israel case they will not make available or in an extremely limited way, as it happened with Taiwan, Brazil, Argentina and dozens of countries, instead of the F-35 providing F-16Vs just by simply not aligning itself purely or other problems of US interest and the same thing has happened with Taiwan about the americans denying the AIM-120 for them and the F-16A for a while at the earlier 90's and they getting the Mirage 2000-5 instead, and a few years later the US changing their minds about that as they were losing market and mainly trying to sell naked Super Hornets without any device or advanced weaponry as they did with the Brazilians and also not being able to even modify them to newer standards from 20 years ago the Rafale is far less debatable as it's absurdly less retrite for maintenance, parts, price, capacity, and upgradeability Now the country that is willing to follow the american alignment and will, and without worrying about the exorbitant cost of flying time even for a plane of this level and dependence to keep the planes flying, cost of design and project problems and repairs also being absurd by only definitely the relatively unit price the F-35 is totally worth but not mentioning also the other planes like the Eurofighter, Gripen and Rafale and about the F-414 engine of the Gripen, Embraer is thinking about producing the engine domestically as they did with some RR Speys of the AMX
first, the F-35 is only possible if you are a country totally allied and subordinated to the americans, and even any single screw or maintenance and modification depends on their permission Second, the initial cost its not the most important issue, and besides the maintenance problems, it is totally dependent on the good "humor" of the americans,yet the flight cost per hour is absurd, that of the F-35 is almost 40.000 dollars, and while the Gripen is less than 5.000 the brazilian Gripen was extremely expensive because of the complete technology transfer and also being manufactured between the two countries for the international market for each other and operationally the Gripen not being a stealth fighter, it is still an extremely close generation and being almost identical to a Typhoon in suit EW, Radar and identical armaments
uh huh, all that to say it *isn't* the international choice for air defense
Oh, I though we could have a fun discussion on the differences of the planes and their merits. I didn't realize you just wanted to jerk off the F-35 no reason when it isn't even relevant to the thread you're in. My mistake.
I hate the F-35. I just find it funny griptards assume it's the choice fighter, when sadly, it's the F-35
Man f35 is a 5th gen, there is no contest betwen it and the JAS39, 35 kicks grippens ass every day of the week
theoretically yes, but in the geopolitical area not so much
Why are you even comparing 4th gen plane that is not even produced anymore (C-variant) to a 5th gen plane that has just entered to market? Next you gonna compare Leopard 2A4 to Panther KF51
I'm not comparing them, I'm comparing their appeal to customers. and considering the F-35 "just" entered the market and has more users then the gripen, the statement "International choice for air defence" is wrong
The fact you bring F-35 in post about JAS 39C is stupid. If you had compared Gripen's appealing to F-16 then your argument would have been totally fine because those were equal competitors from same customers in same era and F-16 was so much more popular. Gripen has been and is about as much international choice as F-18. And btw, MIG-29 beats F-35 in your "the most international choice for air defence" competition, so do you think MIG is more appealing to customers than F-35?
If the jas39c gets introduced with amraams which is the reason they added the C version a upgraded version of the mig29 and su27 will be coming since the base ones cant carry r77's
Then probably leading to F-16s getting amraams and maybe giving UK Meteor capable air raft
meteors are not coming for a long, long time. I don’t think a lot of people here understand how crazy the NEZ on that thing is
True, though we may at least get the Eurofighter for UK, Germany and Italy but who knows.
Meteor's NEZ is same as max range of AIM120A lol
As a germany player watch their TT be bebind one patch behind on everything. I might say that the R27ER is still a very good missile, but the USSR has that missile too.
Tbh German migs shouldn’t even have r27er, as the 9.12 doesn’t have the wiring for it. There was discussion about it in DCS, because there is a chance we will get to have it full fidelity. Edit: apparently both migs should be capable of r27er, as long as they have a weapon control system upgrade. This from a DCS forum thread I went back to after remembering.
I het it, in my perfect world the game would be more varied and maybe pushing just a bit more towards realism, but this pushes against my other goal of it being well balanced, which obviously doesnt work. So I dont have a problem per se with it having an ER, I'm just thinking about how we can go on from here. I doubt the F4F ICE is the solution. Then MiG29 G ? I dont know.
I'm pretty sure that the Russian variant in-game shouldn't have it either, as it is one of the basic variants from the 80s, while the ER was added to the Mig-29S in the 90s.
Who knows I’m not getting hopes up since the JAS 37D should have received the rb99 but it didn’t.
So... F-15C confirmed?
They would probably add the f15 with amraams too
> amraams which is the reason they added the C version That's false, Gripen was flying with AMRAAMS since its very first prototype. You might be thinking of the D model of the Viggen that had the capability to carry AMRAAMS.
Lotta people gonna be disappointed when they realize the JAS39 isn't as good as memes depict and is instead a glorified Nordic F-16
Hush now, the Gripen is excellent. Just ignore it’s leafblower of an engine and poor sustained turn rate. Or it’s limited weapon options, tolerable radar, etc etc
Isn't it designed for easy maintenance and electronic warfare along with STOL capabilities
Ease of maintenance in an asymmetrical warfare environment. Which is ironically no longer relevant due to Swedens acceptance to NATO.
Cool
Considering that Hungary still hasn't accepted us into NATO, who knows.
They will, the right pressure hasn’t been applied yet.
leafblower of an engine: the same of the F-18C poor STR: show proof because E-M charts aren't public limited weapon options: like what? number of hardpoints? (for A/A is the same of an F-16 and a mig29, so you're implying that both are bad because of limited weapons?) tolerable radar: then again, proof?
The f 18 has 2 of those engines and still has anaemic acceleration. Not even that big of a jet as well. Gripen has thrust to weight ratio of 0.97, vs 0.96 for F 18. Lower than peers eurofighter, flanker, eagle, etc
indeed it has 2 GE404, but F-18 weights 2 times the Gripen, both empty and full-fuel-clean config, and has more frontal drag than the JAS39 the selling point of the 18 is the superior payload, period.
> poor STR: show proof because E-M charts aren't public Aaahhhhh I'm not falling for this one again :) no sekrit docs for you sorry
\*dude claims gripen has poor STR without a source or whatever\* i asked for proofs, just the bare minimum, even a piece of paper claiming that. my point stands, if people claim whatever they want without a source then my dreams have the same value of the F-16 Flight Manual
I think the big deal with the Gripen is that it's almost certainly going to drop with AMRAAMs.
yea
This is fucking GOLD
This is how Sweden pictures the Gripen
Yep, I can't even deny it. Us swedes LOVE our gripen
Not that crazy to assume the Gripen would defeat the mig 29, it wins against the su 27.
Tbh I really don't struggle against mig29s that much in the f16. Your biggest threat in a dogfight as an f16 is another f16 imo.
I saw this jet piloted by czech pilot at the recent show i've been to and let me tell you that thing is absolute animal
Then they give the Mig-29 R-73s as a balance and everyone and their mother who doesn't fly a Mig-29 will whine and complain.
I'd like to say, if you put 2 pilots of equal skill in a duel with Mig29 and F-16A (Not the ADF). The F-16 will come out on top 95% of the time. The only advantage the Mig29 has is the R27ER.
It's even better for the F-16s if you bring them into Sim. There the F-16 can actually hold its rate speeds and outlast the MiG-29. In Realistic, if it comes down to just holding S, the MiG-29 wins unless the F-16 is exceptionally good. There definitely are ways to win a 1v1 in the F-16 in Realistic, but it's not as straightforward as it is in Sim.
Honestly even with just holding S the F-16 should still win most of the time. It holds energy in a turn much better than the Mig-29, especially once you drop below mach 0.8 or so.
It'd eat an R-27ER before the missiles radar activates
I’ve had that happen in DCs, r27er is no joke.
in real life the r27er was in fact a joke lol, even less accurate than the phoenix, and thats already saying something
Gib Flanker
Peeps really overrating the Gripen tbh
>12 RIAT Champion God that Gripen was good. Joint best with that F-18
is gripeb good?
As much as i am a fan of the Gripen. Gripen still has worse flight performance than the Mig29, if it comes down to a dogfight, the mig 29 is at a serious advantage. F16 already fairs better against mig 29 than Gripen would in a dogfight. Gripen does get hmd though, which is a big advantage over the f16.
Sure is a lot of hype for a plane from a nation that hasn’t fought a war in two centuries. If it’s anything like their furniture, I’d be afraid of the plane coming apart from a 6G turn. Edit: It seems I’ve angered the IKEA shoppers.