mattebubben

Yea a great show. And great weather =). (some wind but otherwise amazing) Was lucky enough to stand in the right location for the landings so caught the entire 5 group as they landed (Gripen,Viggen,Draken,Tunnan,Sk60 etc) so was able to get some cool pictures as they landed as they flew over me at very low altitude when they were on short final. (flew over the walkpath just a few sec before touchdown). Dont have a great camera but at that short range even my camera could catch them xD. But yea just got home after a long Train ride back north. And the weather for those that went today was not as nice ^^.

Is that not a Mirage 5?. And not a Mirage III. Thought Belgium never had the Mirage III but only the Mirage 5. And if you look at the nose in the picture that looks like a 5 and not a III =P.

the ones that start with 2.75 is the Hydra 70 2.75 Inch rocket that entered service in the 1970s/80s. Where as the FFAR is a older 2.75 rocket that entered service in 1948 The Hydra 70 is derived from the FFAR and has a longer range (more powerful rocket engine). they can carry the same warheads so the only real difference is the rocket engine and the stabilization fins. the FFAR was originally adopted as a air-air rocket (against bombers etc) and the Hydra as an air-ground rocket but in the mid-late 50s the FFAR became more and more re tasked to Air-ground duties as well since it had been proven that rockets were not that effective in the air-air role. The FFAR was the standard 2.75 "light" rocket for the US untill the mid-late 1970s and was used in both Korea (early in its service) and Vietnam, and it has been carried on both helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. (with its use on helicopter gunships being more significant). In game terms the Hydra 70 should be far superior in terms of accuracy and range so if you just want performance the Hydra 70 (Rockets that just start with 2.75) would be the better choice. Where as the FFAR is the older rocket so for any pre 1980 scenarios the FFAR would be a more historical choice.

My guess would be that the request is for the Su-17/22 platform in general with a variant to be determined later. But the later Su-17 and Su-22 variants were pretty similar (if they were of the same model for example Su-17M4 and Su-22M4 could be almost identical depending on customer wishes). the Su-17 and Su-22 were produced side by side the Su-22 designation was just used for any export order even if the aircraft were the same. Some of the export variants were less capable then the 17 variant it was based of but the later Su-22 variants like the M3 and M4 were pretty much just as capable as the Su-17 M3 and M4 variants they were based of (they were pretty much the same with just some minor changes). But then again it was the same for most soviet aircraft types that export aircraft had minor changes done to them the only difference is that in most instances they kept the name of the soviet variant where as in the Case of the 17/22 they got separate designations. If i would have to pick a Su-17/22 variant i would love if they made either the M3 or M4 variants but would not really matter to me if they decided to make it a 17M3/M4 or a 22M3/M4 since they are so similar and either could more or less completely represent the other (depending on the equipment specified by the customer like TV Display and SEAD capability etc).

Well the Su-17/22 is primarily a Attack aircraft. It might be able to carry R60s or K-13s for self defence but its primary role is not as a fighter but as a strike/attack aircraft. And in that role it would be pretty capable and interesting. With Laser guided munitions,Sead weapons and bombs/rockets and depending on Variant it could have TV guided munitions as well (As some Su-17/22M4s were fitted with a TV display to use TV guided munitions like the KH-29T etc). So in the Strike role it would be pretty capable and would give us a fast eastern strike aircraft that is currently lacking (where as there as two western fast strike aircraft on the way in the form of the AJS 37 and the F/A-18C) as well as being able to take over the SEAD mission from the SU-25T that is not really optimal for the task.

The Su-17/22 is such a neat and cool aircraft (and it also looks pretty nice). It would be amazing to have it in DCS since it has so many capabilities and features etc and its nr.1 on my DCS wishlist.

That list is for the First AV-8B and if you look you can see its published 1986. So long before the AV-8B NA and long before any harrier was equipped with a TGP.

The Viggen is such a sexy beast =). And i cant wait to do some proper real low flying =).

The F-5E Uses the same RWR Display as the A-10A. (The IP-1310/ALR). So it should be able to do the same things as the system on the A-10A.

I very much hope they fix this and add the New contact Ping as well as a Lock warning. Since for me those are just as important as a Launch warning. And it really helps with situational awareness (letting you know that you need to lock at the RWR display) where as now its easy to loose focus and forget the RWR panel and then the first warning of someone turning on their radar is when the missile is already on its way.

Not sure if the Harrier is able to carry the AGM-65 TER (Lau-88). Dont think ive seen any Navy or USMC aircraft carry it. (F/A-18,Harrier etc) So i think its Air force only. So i think we will be limited to 4 AGM-65s. (using the two innermost pylons on each wing).

By Type. Pretty much the main reason for the NCTR was for IFF. To let you determine the type of the enemy aircraft at BVR range thus helping you ID it as a friend or a enemy. In most combat scenarios you would know beforehand what aircraft types your side is flying and what the enemy is flying. Lets say your side has Mirage 2000s F-16s and F-15s and the enemy has Mig-29s and Mig-21s. You see a target on your radar and you lock it up with your radar and the NCTR tells you what type the target is. So if it says Mig-29 or Mig-21 you know it has to be hostile as there are no friendlies operating those aircraft types. Where as if it comes back as F-16 or F-15 you know they are friendlies. This can be used together with IFF transponders so you have a two layer system to further reduce the chance of Blue on Blue incidents. So if the IFF system fails for some reason you can still ID the target allowing for a BVR shot.

Well its "Anti-ship" mission would be against small lightly armed (Or unarmed) ships. Landing crafts and Patrol Boats as well as Trade ships and transports etc. Small ships (that can be seriously hurt or outright sunk by a AGM-65) with only lighter Anti-Air weapons (smaller autocannons and Manpads etc). Leaving larger ships for Navy aircraft etc.

The Hud was updated (and changed ) due to new info. So there are several Hud related changes.

Minor correction about the radar sorry but i just have to. :smartass: the AV-8B+ uses the APG-65 so its the same radar as the F/A-18A (most radars were taken from F/A-18A aircraft when they were upgraded to the F/A-18A+ Variant by giving them the new APG-73 radar of the F/A-18C ). So its not the "same" radar as on the F/A-18C but its the same family of radar (with the APG-73 of the F/A-18C being an improved variant). And on subject of the AGM-82 i agree. While there is plenty of claims of the AV-8B+ being Harpoon capable ive not seen definite evidence either way. So it could either be that it does not have the ability or it does have it but its just not used (due to other aircraft being used for the role instead). Since if it was a capability that was commonly used there would probably be more proof for it. Edit:Darn =( spent to long time editing etc so i got sniped ^^.

Thanks mate. I generally dont rely on Wikipedia but in this instance i was unable to find anything else that had detailed information on the subject. But again thanks for the correction and info =).

#Viggen It will be the first Modern A-G radar though that has all the abilities alot of ppl (fans of the F-16 etc) expect from a air-ground radar. Since the Viggen A-G Radar is of an older type.

a F-5F would be possible perhaps but a T-38 would demand alot more work. It would almost be a new aircraft (when it comes to development time) since there are so many differences in Visual Models, Cockpit,Flight performance and flight model etc. Where as a F-5F would require less work (as its just the Two seater variant of the F-5E) since its performance is pretty much the same the front cockpit should be more or less identical, the systems etc should be the same and the change in visual model would be smaller then for a T-38. And the F-5F is also fully combat capable giving it more of a use then a T-38.

Here is an example of a source in english mentioning the Rockets of the Viggen. "135 mm Bofors M70 rockets (either 21 kg GP warhead with 3.7kg explosive or 20 kg AP fragmentation warhead with 5 kg explosive) in pods of six each" Source http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviation/text/37viggen.htm that was the only source i could find in a quick search gonna try to remember where i first read about the Different warhead types. But speaking of the Viggens rockets i sure hope they get the Smoke trails right. Since they are quite different from the current rockets and they look amazing. [ame] [/ame] That Diry Dark smoke looks very cool. And i hope they manage to get custom smoke for those rockets instead of the standard white smoke trails.

Ok thanks for Clarification Prowler =). And keep up the amazing work.

If my memory is correct the there should be AP-Frag warheads for the Rockets as well and not just HE(GP). And while the 120kg bomb is the only bomb carried by the Viggen it should be available in both Low drag (normal) and high drag configs (if i remember correctly).

Q1 =A I will most likely get it maby not on day one (Depends on the money i have at the time and if there are any other modules i want more at the time) but i will get it for sure. Q2 The base harrier we are getting will not be equipped with a Radar (though they have said we might get a radar equipped AV-8B+ Later onces the radar functionality comes) but the first/primary AV-8B we are getting will not have a radar. Q3 = B. Far more interested in the AV-8B since it will bring some new capabilities and will be a interesting little attack aircraft where as im personally not that interested in trainers. Q4 =A. It will be a interested and unique aircraft and will probably be very usefull sure it wont be as fast as a F/A-18 or as rugged as the A-10 and it will have a far smaller weaponsload then either but i think it will be a very interested and effective aircraft none the less. Q5 They are working on both aircraft at the same time (as well as a number of others) Since not all Razbam members are working on a single aircraft and many (if not most) devs have areas they are specialized on within the development of an aircraft/module and once they are done with what they are specialized at they move on to another aircraft since they might not be able to contribute any more to the current aircraft (at that stage) and no point in having them sit idle when they can work on something else. So there are many projects worked on at the same time without really slowing them down all that much.

I thought you guys were doing the AV-8B NA (as the first with the + to possibly follow when the Ground radar arrives) and not the Base AV-8B.

Thank you for the correction. And this also shows the Dangers of going by Wikipedia (could not find that many other sources on the Mig-23) This is the Quote from Wiki that got me so sidetracked. "MiG-23bis("Flogger-G") Similar to the MiG-23P except the IRST was restored and the cumbersome radar scope was eliminated because all of the information it provided could be displayed on the new head-up display (HUD)." And the Mig-23Bis is shown as one of the first Second Gen Mig-23s (after the Mig-23P and to my knowledge there was a Mig-23Bis it just never entered large scale production / use) so my guess from that was that earlier aircraft used the Cumbersome radar display mentioned. But thank you for getting me straightened out. I knew Mig-23s used a HUD that displayed radar data i was just mistaken in what variants had it.

A Simple A-4 is on the way from Hoggit already. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=159823