mattebubben

Correct. Typo on my part (mixing up the words due to thinking about one thing when im supposed to type the other)

It would be possible to carry a third missile on the centerline but you would not be able to Launch it (but it could be use to transport an extra missile if you went to a different base etc). And my understand is that during the design faze there were some plans on making the center pylon able to launch anti ship missiles as well but it was decided that the extra fuel was more important (allowing for higher speeds and more time in AFB even on short range missions) so a Centerline tank were to be carried are pretty much all times (in a combat scenario atleast). As for ingame i would guess we wont be able to even mount one on the centerline, as first it very rare to use that pylon to transport a missile and secondly you could not launch it even if you could carry it. Edit : Fixed Typo Thanks RaXha.

They have stated there will be a Live Stream tomorrow. 20.00CET at this link (It was announced in the last Viggen Teaser called Ghosts and Thunder)

Well while the mainbases for the wings AJ/AJS 37s where further inland (or to far north) they did have wartime bases and short runways assigned to them that where closer to the coast.

Historically it had a secondary air-air role but that would mainly be intercepting Helicopters or transports or other unarmed aircraft if there were no Fighters (JA37s or J35s) available for the task, and they would rely on GCI on that so it should be able to be used like that in DCS and it would be no worse then the Mig-21 or F-5E in that role (It would have better missiles then either but would have the same problem as the F-5E with having no IFF interrogation system). As far as i know the radar should show up on RWR if its radar waves hits an aircraft, but its another question if it would be recognizable or just show up as unkown.

Its pretty much as fast as either of those and has good acceleration but has a worse Thrust/weight ratio. Its sustained turn rate is worse then either though its instantaneous turn rate is not horrible. It has a good roll rate and is pretty maneuverable (for a 1960s-1970s jet anway) but in an outright dogfight it will have the disadvantage. It can carry Aim-9s (RB 24J = AIM-9P/J and RB74 = Aim-9L) and can carry a total of 6 if you exclude air-ground weapons or 2 if you only use the dedicated Air-Air pylons. If forced into and air-air engagement you should use the speed and roll rate together with terrain to either slip away or get a shot off at an unsuspecting foe. But a head-head dogfight should be avoided whenever possible as that is not the role of the AJ/AJS 37 (but rather the Fighter variant the JA 37) the Radar of the AJ/AJS 37 is not made for Air-Air combat so its not very effective in that role but it has some basic search modes as well as a ranging mode to give range information missile launch envelopes. And you should be far less likely to be caught by an enemy to start with in an AJS 37 as you are mach 1+ at low altitude and mach 2+ at altitude so you can always run from a hostile (in a way the A-10 has no way of doing).

Well we Swedes have some food nobody else understands as well (The big one being Surströmming) So we can respect that ^^.

Great news! Im very much looking forward to it =).

The Scottish have always been known for their good taste :thumbup:.

How can you call this aircraft Ugly? and Uglier then the A-10?... But then again what do the Brits know about Designing Good looking aircraft ^^ Especially good looking jets... I mean have you Seen the Blackburn Buccaneer :megalol:

But then again against manpads it kinda depends on how low and fast you are flying as well as the terrain. If you are flying at 20-50m at Mach 0.9 and the terrain is not perfectly flat than a manpad operator would have a hard time seeing and launching at the target in time. Over water or perfectly flat terrain or if the aircraft is flying in the 200-1000m range then yes its alot more dangerous. But also the shift to high altitude flying instead of low altitude was not really just because of manpads it was very much due to the new type of warfare that was the new focus. The low Altitude tactics where based on a full scale war between super powers where Fighters and advanced long range sams were plentyfull and where a manpad threat would be secondary and less dangerous then the swarms of Sams and advanced medium / long range sams in the area. But after the cold war most of the combat has been against less advanced opponents where one side has complete air superiority and the enemy does not have the latest and best Sam systems but instead rely mostly on cheap weapons like unguided AAA weapons and hand Held manpads. In that kind of scenario that is standard then flying high makes sense as there is no high altitude threat. But if we again got into a scenario where that enemy had as many fighters as you had (so neither side has air superiority) and Advanced medium - long range sams cluttered the area im confident tactics would change again. Since for strikers flying high only makes sense when there are no enemy fighters around. Tactics are always changing depending on the foe and and what kind of threats are greatest and most numerous.

Dont know how much though since as i think its programmed to fly at a certain altitude so if dropped at 500m it would simply descend to that altitude (probably some where around 50m) and then fly at that altitude so while it would perhaps gain some speed it would not be a huge change in range. I Could be wrong but thats my understanding of how it works (and also why it should not be dropped higher as at higher altitudes the Radar Altimeter would get no reading so it might get confused as to how to steer) The Standard BK 90 is designed to glide at low altitudes so that is what it would try to do when dropped so that is when it is happiest. One thing to note though is that the BK 90 can be dropped off bore so you dont have to fly directly at the target so if you dont want to risk overflying the target you can simply drop the bombs while flying at an angle and BK 90 will turn towards the target while you will stay out of greater risk. The Stated numbers for 50m and 0.9 mach were 10km straight ahead of 5km 90 Degrees for either side so when launched against a target that is just 20-45 degrees from the flight heading the range should still be decent while at the same time the risk for the aircraft would be lower since you would not pass as deep into the range of the enemy defenses. But sadly for the Standard BK 90 higher altitude drops are not a part of its stated capabilities but we will have to wait and see what kind of things you can try to do with it that are against regulations.

On the concern of the Bk 90 i know ive read that the Swedish variant (the BK 90) had a Radar Altimeter that was weaker and only made for low level flying so at higher altitudes it could not read what altitude it was traveling at and as such the navigation system might not work properly. Where as the International version of the BK 90 / DWS 24 as used by Greece called AFDS (Autonomous Flight Dispenser System) has a more powerful Radar Altimeter designed to allow higher altitude deployments. A similar Altimeter could probably have been used by the BK 90 as well but i assume since the Swedish Strike Doctrine favored low altitude / high speed approaches they did not see the need for a more expensive / more powerful altimeter system as higher altitude drops were not a part of the doctrine. (As the weapon was developed for the Swedish air force the low level deployment and weaker altimeter was standard but when Greece ordered it they wanted a more powerful system to allow higher altitude deployment). The biggest problem i see with the BK 90 and the low altitude employment is that some of the terrain in the Caucasus map could be problematic since i dont know how well it would deal with hilly and mountainous terrain (And i think Hilly Terrain might be why Greece wanted a variant able to be dropped from higher altitudes) since it would try to stay at a chosen altitude / route and as such trying to fly up a hill/slope would cause it to bleed speed to where it would be less likely to reach a target (unless dropped from closer ranges).

Yes some of the Wings had some of there JA 37s painted in the green splinter scheme and some in the Grey Air superiority/fighter scheme. This was done to make it harder for the enemy to ID the aircraft variant since all other Viggen variants were painted in the green splinter as standard so an aircraft with the green camo could be of any type be it AJ 37,SH 37 SF 37 Sk 37 or JA 37 they could not use the paintscheme to ID them other then that a Grey Viggen had to be a Fighter Viggen but rather they had to try to visually ID the type by looking at the airframe what ever ordnance they had as well as the markings but that is not always the easiest things to do in combat or mock combat scenarios. Here is an example of this with 2 JA 37s from the F4 wing. One painted in the Green Splinter camo and the other in the Gray air superiority paintscheme. Edit: Dang Ren just beat me to it xD.

Not all of it =P. I know some things but far from all =P. And one of the things i do know is that F7 only flew the AJ/AJS 37 so a 7 on the nose of a Viggen means it has to be an Attack Viggen =P.

That would be an AJ 37. Since as RaXha noted 1988 is before the AJS 37 Upgrade. But if you look at the nose marking you can see a number that looks to be a 7. That designates this as an aircraft belonging to the F7 Wing stationed at Såtenäs and they only Operated the AJ/AJS 37 thus this has to be an AJ 37 =).

The manual section for it is WIP. But the weapon itself is fully implemented and Functional. It works perfectly with a Jtac or Buddy laze and doing a diving attack from some altitude you dont have to be too precise when it comes to dropping parameters as the Bomb should be able to correct and guide to target (within a pretty large margin of error).

Well we can all agree to disagree xD. But either way we should hopefully know more on the 28th.

And thats why the Su-25T is in the game?. Since that was little more then a prototype... It was tested in combat because there was a war on while they were still being tested. But it never entered full production. (With only 13 aircraft total being made 3 being basic prototypes and 8 being "production" aircraft). The F-20 in the end was in a combat ready state so its not much less of a prototype then the Su-25T was... (3 F-20s were made). And i would not say its not relevant to DCS as much as there are other aircraft that should take precedence and be added first. But the F-20 was an interesting and there very some nations that were very interested. And Taiwan even wanted to buy it but Politics stopped the purchase.

Page 564 on page 57. Or for Simplicity. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2601502&postcount=564

Well the Mirage IIICJ and the F-5E and Mig-21Bis are not completely Contemporary. As the Mirage IIICJ is over 10 years older. The Mirage IIICJs were delivered between 1962-1964 where as the Mig-21Bis and F-5E first entered service in 1972 (with the F-5E-3 being a later 1970s variant). And they have a number of advantages over the Mirage IIICJ due to that age difference (They have RWR systems the IIICJ does not they have better Radars then the CJ etc) So a Mirage IIIE might be More contemporary to the Mig-21Bis and F-5E-3 we have ingame. The Mirage IIICJ will still be a competitive aircraft performance wise against those two but it will have a disadvantage systems/tech wise. And also dont forget the Iran-Iraq war as that was a pretty significant Air War as well.

Personally i think i might pass on a CJ. A Mirage IIIE i would get but a Mirage IIICJ i think i might pass. Since i want some of the interesting Features that the Mirage IIIE would bring (Air-Ground Radar Modes and the undernose Doppler Navigation radar etc) things that a Mirage IIICJ does not have. I might get it at a later date on a sale or something but i dont think i would get a Mirage IIICJ on release.

The First thing im gonna do in MP once we have the AJS 37 is Wait untill someone is behind me on a narrow Taxiway and then Stop and Start Reversing towards him ^^. Either that or do one of the 180 turns with the Reverser and just look at him ^^ .

The Mirage IIICJ should be both easier and probably quicker to develop as its less complex. Where as a Mirage IIIE would need the Air-Ground Radar modes to be implemented thus it would first need to wait for the Air-Ground radar mode to be completed by ED and it would also require work by ED and Razbam to Adopt the Air-Ground radar to the Mirage IIIE and modify it to work and look properly (which would also require plenty of work and effort that a Mirage IIIC variant would not need). So they likely had to weigh the options and decide if they think that longer and more complex development would pay off in more sales or not. Thats my Speculations at least.

Are you serious? =O. On the 28th Leatherneck has announced they will do a Live Twitch Stream related to the Viggen (as the announcement for it was in a Viggen teaser). So the Hope is that it will be an unveiling of the Viggen with Video + pictures etc as well as hopefully info on the release date etc. Its what everyone it currently waiting for.