Skjold

RB 05 was confirmed i am fairly sure, yes. AFAIK all weapons the AJS could carry will be in including RB 04, RB 05, RBS 15, RB 75, RB 75T, BK 90, RB 74, RB 24J, 135 mm rockets, 120 kg m/71 frigo bombs etc.. The only weapon that will NOT be in is the AIM-4.

Some modules i think has it, some don't. I am not sure of the details as to be frank, you rarely even see servers were you have to consider the notion.

Would be really nice to have as an AI unit anyway!

Sure, i simply did not know that. My OP was a question which Tinak replied to and i more or less agreed and said that it made sense together with a clarification of my original thought. If absolute stand off range as the Phoenix was designed for would still be a priority, a bigger missile body could accomplish that due to the same effective engines that makes the AIM-120C-8/D achieve that impressive range. Now there might be other limitations, such as effective ways of guiding said missile over those extreme ranges, the idea that they might not maintain guidance over that distance and a million other things. Truth is however, from a design stand point there is not a single missile in the USN or USAF inventory that fills the specific role that the AIM-54 did in the 1970s and 80s when that range was absolutely unmatched. I dont even know what you mean by this, also no need for the passive aggressive tone from your first post.

1. I ended that statement with "It could easily be explained with politics of war and it is just speculation" 2. I said doctrinally, you are speaking about range. Not the same thing.

Space on a carrier and commonality with other platforms is likely a very big factor, yes. I am talking in the USN inventory not the Tomcat specifically, the replacement would be the AIM-120 (Which as you said, also replaced the AIM-7). So yes, it was replaced. Even if something doesnt get a direct replacement it still does get replaced. Thats like saying the F-14 never was replaced. Sure, it never had a direct replacement that could fill the roles an F-14 could do - but in effect it was nonetheless replaced. I know that they had carrier defense role during Desert Storm and neither did i say the F-14 is inferior. It has the same AIM-7 missiles as an F-15 would have and a more powerful radar etc. My point was this: If a capability is just THAT good, military planners would logically incorporate it in their overall strategy and ignore the politics. Not all F-14's would be needed for BARCAP anyway, but i will give you that politics of war is a good enough reason and the rest is just pure speculation. I am talking about a missile similar in doctrinal use to the Phoenix. There seems to be little to no interest in it despite the re-emergance of Russian Long Range Aviation. This could be attributed to reducing defense budgets quite easily however. Makes sense. However that also makes it as not ideal to use against fighters then, simply because of its extra weight which probably is another reason for its retirement, just not a very practical missile for the plane, ground crew or hosting ship. Keep in mind that i am talking about the people that say stuff like "AIM-54 is the best missile ever they should have just mass produced them and scrapped all other programs etc" :thumbup:

Not entirely sure i agree with you here. "Even if you take the Iranian claims with a grain of salt, you get some impressive results" ? The Iranians are literally the only ones that has claimed kills with the AIM-54 so that would leave nothing. Also, at what range was these manouvering targets hits? That is also very important data. Now is the AIM-54 manouverable? Especially for its size? Hell yeah. But it also is so big that i have my doubts it is as good as people claim it is. What always struck me is if the Phoenix is as good as people claim it to be why did: 1. The Navy retire it even prior to the retirement of its primary launch platform. 2. Replace it with a smaller, more agile missile with shorter range. 3. Why was it not used more extensively in the air-to-air role in for example Desert Storm? Surely stand off range means less overflight of Iraqi SAM and therefor less risk to american crews yet the USAF F-15's did all of that with AIM-7's. 4. Why was there no further developments to keep a Phoenix derivative in service? 5. Why did F-14's have BARCAP and MIGCAP loadouts with the latter being AIM-7's if the AIM-54 was just that much better in every way?

You do realise that... this was September last year right? I would also like to add that Cobra has apologised for this before.

Honestly nobody really uses the Foxbat anymore. The few that are "active" are more so "active on paper" then actual flight worthy aircraft. I also gotta say i never heard of Iran using them, they have MiG-29's but no 25's to my knowledge. Algeria have a token force that is scheduled for replacement soon. That said, the MiG-25 is no match for an F-14, other then its pure speed it holds no advantage at all against the Tomcat.

R-77 is not a long range missile, it is shorter range then the AIM-120C. Russian long range missiles is R-33 (MiG-31) and R-40 (MiG-25) (for its time). No balance will be done since it is a simulator. It is up to the server hosts/mission creator to decide what is acceptable on their own server/mission.

Ok thanks for the clarification Zeus.

Can you specify a certain reaction for a specific missile "aircraft launched aim-120 -> no warning" and "aircraft launched aim-7 -> warning" or is it generic "aircraft launched radar missile true/false -> warning/no warning"? It might just be that the code is such that an AMRAAM launch is specified to not give a launch warning to give the illusion that it is being guided by TWS and not picked up by RWR until it activates its own onboard radar. There is clearly something coded into other RWR's to make this happen and the Mirages RWR seems to pick up both the missile and the plane itself. If it is possible to specify reactions for specific missiles these should be all the active guided missiles that behaves like this in the game: AIM-120B, AIM-120C, R-77 & MICA-EM.

I agree. Nobody has ever disagreed with you on that point. As i said, you are discussing with yourself. Yeah Jankko, probably a good time to call it.

Mongolf, what the hell are you even on about? You are rambling about stuff that has nothing to do with the subject matter. It seems like you read into peoples opinions way too much and also make a long list of assumptions on what people think based on.. what? You are basicly having a conversation with yourself... To me it seems like you complain about simplification of history yet you insist on your interpretation of said history being the only correct one. And for gods sake nobody is blaming Olof Palme.

Or maybe you should mention it around us because of for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Svensksund :thumbup: I really can't wait for the Viggen, i have visited this thread daily for over a year now. A lot of interesting people and discussions :thumbup:

Very nice train and Kübelwagen!

I actually agree, AI cap is just bad. It has really weird behaviours too regarding locks etc.. I would gladly see them removed. Edit: Another solution is as Cosmic says, make them use older planes MiG-23/F-4 or even MiG-21/F-5

No it is not silly. If you buy everything from abroad you will never develop your own aviation industry. We could have bought ready made planes from the era, but we didn't. The Viggen was a very expensive and controversial project for its time, so was the Gripen. In the end however, it was worth it due to amongst others: Further developments into the military aviation industry and learn how to design advanced components of the 60s such as HUD, RWR, Avionics Computer etc. Developing a plane that fit our specific strategic need of anti-ship missile capable attack aircraft with relatively long range and good low level performance. (Remember, the West barely had ASM in the mid 60s) Spending the money on swedish companies, serving as kinda a direct injection of money into the economy which creates jobs. Potential to gain export customers such as with the Draken. Serve as a means of increasing overall technical engineering expertise in the country. Better question is, why would we buy something cheaper and off the shelf? :thumbup:

Jammers in DCS basicly work as noise jammers which shortens the range of which you can lock onto somebody and i (think) it also reduces the accuracy of radar guided missiles fired on you. 1. If he has you locked, turning it on might break the lock so nothing to lose there. 2. Just keep it on, i (think) it reduces the hit chance slightly as long as he hasnt achieved full burn through. 3. No. 4. No matter, you are well within burn through range and it shouldnt affect anything anymore. 5. Same principle as with planes. Now what are the drawbacks of using the jammer? Well.. For one it is a huge "i am here" symbol that gives a rough location of where you are while having it off might keep you off somebodies scope. If i am wrong feel free to correct me.

Neat with new Cargo, great job!

See microwax video.

Just a guess: Sweden tried as much as possible to be independent in terms of aviation industry, of course the engine on the Viggen for example is a license produced american one with modifications, but mostly everything else was made here with the notable exception of AIM-4/AIM-9 and (later) AGM-65 Maverick. The radar was made by Ericsson and the avionics computer "Central Calculator 37" was a native design as well as the RWR and HUD. All other weaponry was swedish as well Rb 04, Rb 05, 135 mm rockets, 120 kg bombs. Even the sight designed for use of the Mavericks on the Viggen was a swedish design. Basicly, if you want a good aviation industry you need to start producing stuff yourself.

If RAZBAM has no more liveries planned maybe a community contest of some type would be nice where the winners get their skins implemented in the base module. ED hosted a contest like that for the Bf-109 K-4 and i thought it was a brilliant idea that should be used more often as there is a lot of talented people in the DCS community. Beautiful, even if Sweden never was an operator. :thumbup:

Yeah TAS doesn't work currently. RS works fine however.

Yes and aircraft can be missing features and deemed as a release version. (See Gunpods on Bf-109, Fw-190) To get back on topic, i think it is only some backup systems, ground mapping mode for the radar and CM programming that is missing.