Discuss.

>>33182087

It's bait, there's not much to discuss.

>>33182133
Sounds like a SAAB shill

>>33182133
There's a picture with text on it, that's pretty much as BTFO as it gets

>>33182087
You are not really building up to any discussion OP. What do you want us to argue about?

The only half-decent bait in this post is shitting on the Meteor. Besides that nobody on /k/ gives a shit.

I think the F-15 gun is on the wrong side of the plane.

>>33182087

>F-15
>over 100 victories and no losses in aerial combat

PROVEN
R
O
V
E
N

>>33182087
There's not much to discuss, it's completely right.

>>33182087
The plane on the left looks decent, the plane on the right looks like Mad Max shit.

>>33183490
The picture is actually inverted. The tracers curving upward instead of downward because of gravity is a dead giveaway.

File: 1487932269058.png (158KB, 816x754px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 816x754px

>Gripen

>an F-16 from IKEA that got the wings put on backwards because of their shitty instructions.

File: phs gripen's gift.png (1MB, 1024x1512px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x1512px

>>33182087
Payload is about the only legitimate complaint on the left. I'll admit that comparing it to an F-5 (or better yet, F-20) is a pretty fair comparison too. It's a small jet with only 10 tons of thrust, and that in of itself limits it's capability significantly, especially on long-range or strike missions.

Other than that, half the complaints are invalid when discussing the NG variant. It's highly disingenuous to compare the latest and greatest Strike Eagle with a 15-year-old Gripen variant, especially when the majority of Strike Eagles are even older and have more primitive equipment.

Nevertheless, even putting it in more fair terms, there's no denying that, plane-for-plane, a NEW Strike Eagle is more capable than a NEW Gripen NG. The main appeal of the Gripen is that it's cheap as chips (only about half as much as a new F-15).