mattebubben

We are getting the AJS-37 attack variant. the JA-37D fighter variant will be a AI only addition (to give the AJS 37s come company / Escort for the Campaign missions etc) Since it would not be a huge problem to remake the Visual Model from the AJ 37 standard to a JA 37 suitable to AI. the AJS 37 is a strike variant and will have a number of different weapons at its disposal. Including Antiship missiles(Both the RB04C and RB15F),Unguided bombs and rockets,Gunpods, Guided missiles in the form of the RB 05 (Air-Ground missile guided by the use of a small joystick in the cockpit) and the AGM 65 Mavericks as well as being able to carry Aim-9s for self defence.

The Camoflage paintscheme started appearing in small numbers around 1974 and started becoming the standard for the AJ 37 in the mid-70 and in the late 70s most of the AJs were using the Camo scheme. And the AJ 37s delivered after 74 usually came with the Camo scheme as standard. If you look at the photo you can see some of the AJ 37s have the Camo while most do not. Dont know the exact date where the Last AJ 37s were painted with the camo but have not been able to find any photos depicting a AJ 37 in the 80s that is still unpainted so my guess would be that it became universal sometime around 78-79.

They have all the same problems that the Mirage 2000s missiles had on launch. So they are most likely related in that the Stats of the missiles are old and have not been updated for a long time making them perform alot worse then they should etc.

What Aim-9P variant is the Aim-9P based on? Is it the Basic Aim-9P variant or one of the other rear aspect variants (P1,P2,P3) Since some of the Aim-9P variants had different rocket engines / and control units so they have differing range / maneuverability. And my biggest problem with the Aim-9P and P5 is not related to what angles you can get a lock at but rather missile performance and vulnerability to flares. As they can hardly turn at all. Sure the Aim-9P/P5 is no Aim-9X or even R-73. But in the game it performs like a Aim-9B... And while some of Seeker problems can be attributed to the F-5E the poor performance of the missile can not since if it uses the Aim-9M seeker head something must be wrong since the Aim-9P5 will go for a flare when ever it is given the chance. Pretty much every time it will go for a flare. And that is certainly not right. The fact is that missiles like the R-3S for example is currently much more powerfull then the Aim-9P5 is... and that missile is supposed to be a copy of the Aim-9B with possibly a worse seeker... Yet its as or more maneuverable then the Aim-9P5 is and the seeker is alot more resistant to flares...

Again. The manual makes no references for the MK82 Snake eye (only the Normal MK 82) and also makes no Reference for the CBU-52 and its only reference for the GBU-12 is a WIP tag.

Im curious myself for the proper setup for the Snakeyes as well as the CBU-52s since i dont think its mentioned in the Manual either (atleast i could not find it but i might just be blind ofc =P)

it makes a bit of sense that =P. Since replacing the Drag chute is a bit more work then hanging new weapons under the wings, and you most certainly would not want to do it with the engines running due to the location of the Drag Chute "box"

I feel that if you want a two seater based of the F-5/T-38 design (from belsimtek atleast) the F-5F would be the way to go. the F-5F is very similar to the F-5E (but is a two seat variant) It has very similar Visual model and Performance and has mostly the same combat capabilities (it lacks one of the 20mm cannons of the E) It would be far easier to make a F-5F from the F-5E base(though it would still require plenty of work) then it would be to make a T-38 from the F-5E (and the F-5F would also be fully combat capable).

And thats pretty much the only time you can get a kill with the Aim-9P5 atm. The guns are more effective xD. I really hope they fix it as soon as possible for the sake of the F-5E. And especially since nobody can possibly argue that this is how the Aim-9P5 (Or the Aim-9P) should actually perform since they are very obviously performing alot worse then they should. (In all areas from Range to turning performance to seeker performance/sensitivity to flares etc) Atm i mainly use the Aim-9P5 as a Signal flare ^^ when it feels like firing atleast which is not a sure thing to start with.

Yea is the same problem the Mirage 2000 had with its missiles on release (ED made Magic II and Super 530) The modeling was old so they preformed like sheit and Razbam had to make their own missiles. I hope Belstimtek does the same as quickly as possible (or ED makes a change ASAP) Since this pretty much makes the F-5E a guns only fighter since the missiles are worthless. Im annoyed that this is something nobody had realised and fixed before the release =P. (since these missiles are not limited to the F-5E but were already in the game)

This would help Alot especially for the noobs unfamiliar with this kind of bombing (me beind an example) Or they could start by just adding the reference tables they have in the Manual to the kneeboard. (for Bombs,Rockets and Guns etc and then make a full table at a later date)

Yea and when you zoom in one can clearly see that there are 15 slots (for the flares) and 30 for the chaff. Only real question would be if there are 1 or 2 flares per cartridge since some flare cartridges had 2 and others have 1. Since that could change the number to 30 instead of 15. But untill proven otherwise i will assume the current setup is correct (with 15 flares 1 per cartridge)

Well the lack of good missiles for the Draken was more the Fault of the Airforce etc then it was the Aircraft itself. And export users would have been able to make their own choices (within reason) since some modifications especially when it came to IR missiles should not have been hard to do. For example the Draken with the best missiles were the J35s exported to Austria that started to be armed with All aspect Aim-9P5s in the early 90s. And also the missiles Sweden had were good enough in the 60s (since were no other missiles that were allot better around then and no point in getting a missile that was only slightly better since it would itself be outdated just a few years later) It was not really until the early-mid 70s were better missiles started to become available and that point Sweden started looking. And while the RB 24J was not exactly top of the line when it was adopted (as the Aim-9L entered initial service the same year) it was not terrible either. The bigger mistake when it came to the Draken if you ask me is that we never acquired a All aspect missile for it in the 80s or 90s. The best option would probably have been to get a Aim-9P4/5 or a Aim-9Juli in the 80s by both Upgrading the Existing RB24Js to the new standard (by replacing Seeker / Guidance units etc) as well as possible new manufacture. (With the Aim-9Juli being a German Conversion kit where a Aim-9J/N/P series missile was upgraded and equipped with Aim-9L guidance and control assemblies and some other minor changes) And use that missile together with the RB 74. Using the RB 74 (Aim-9L) as the main IR missile for the JA 37 with the slightly less less capable but cheaper all aspect missile being the Standard Air-Air missile for the J35 and AJ 37. That would most likely have been the best Cost/Performance option since it would not have resulted in any waste of existing missiles (as they would be upgraded to the new standard) while at the same time vastly increasing the capabilities.

yea this is very wrong. And especially on the Flare rejection side. Since the Aim-9P5 should be very close to the Aim-9M on that subject (thats the entire reason behind the Aim-9P5 variant over the Aim-9P4 so start with) I really hope they give the missile some attention (both the Aim-9P and the P5 actually as they both need some serious attention). This is pretty much the same problem the mirage 2000 had when it came out. Where they pretty much had to result to adding their own missile variant as the ED missiles (R.550 and R.530) were outdated and were under performing very badly. In either case i hope the F-5E gets improved Aim-9s (both Aim-9P and Aim-9P5 as quickly as possible.) And not just a fix in FOV as thats only a part of the problem. (since sure will be nice to have that fix but that still wont make these missiles perform as they should after launch.)

Yes but the K-13M1 had copied the new Canard shape and steering assembly of the Aim-9J (probably copied from a Aim-9J stolen from south korea) Where as the K-13M used the canard shape of the Aim-9D series of missiles. And why should it preform better then the Aim-9P? The Aim-9P entered service in the late 1970s (around 1978.) Where as the K-13M1 seems to have entered service around 1976. The Aim-9P is an improvement of the Aim-9J and even the first Aim-9P should be a step up in terms of maneuverability (Due to more powerful steering servos and better guidance systems) The Aim-9P and the K-13M1 should either be very close in performance (if the soviets improved on the design of the Aim-9J they acquired) or slightly worse then the Aim-9P if they did not. Either way the Aim-9P (and especially the Aim-9P5 as it should be more maneuverable etc then the standard Aim-9P was) should be much more capable then it is today. And if you can find a source stating otherwise (or that the K-13M1 should be better then the Aim-9P) i would be more then happy to see it. And also its not related to MP lagg since i have the same problem in SP (both when im the one launching and when im the one "evading") And if we go back to the K-13. The K-13 series are basically copies of the Aim-9 (nothing wrong with that) With the K-13 (R-3) which was the first variant and in many ways just a prototype and was produced in small numbers being a direct copy of the Aim-9B The K-13A (R-3S) being the first mass production variant and had some modification including simplifications to make it easier/cheaper to produces (some of those simplifications made it slightly less effective then the Aim-9B it was copied from) The K-13M was a improvement of the series and copied many of the new features from the Aim-9D and Gs copied from examples that had been acquired from Vietnam (Most likely captured or found by North Vietnamese troops and given to Russia in exchange for military equipment) And then the K-13M1 (last missile of the series) that used the lessons learned from the stolen Aim-9J from South Korea. During the 60s and early 70s the Russians were generally playing catch up when it came to missile tech and it was not until the 80s with the R-73 that they got ahead on missile tech. (which did not last long as the west re-took the lead in the 90s with the Aim-120 and then with a series of new IR missiles in the early 2000s) So there is nothing to really suggest that the K-13M1 would be superior to the Aim-9P in maneuverability.

Much of the same was sometimes said about the F-4E and the F-16A when the F-16 first entered service. Since the F-4 had BVR weapons (that the F-16A lacked early on) could carry a heavier payload and was able to carry targeting pods (Pave Spike and Pave Tack etc) letting it self laze. It generally takes some time for a new aircraft to mature and get the needed equipment etc before it starts to reach its full combat potential.

One area where the F-5 should be superior to the F-14 though is roll rate. And in a maneuvering fight that quick roll rate could give it a decent edge since it would alot for much faster reversals etc. So while the F-14 might have the edge in turning the F-5E would still have a decent change to outmaneuver a F-14 if it had a good pilot at the controls.

Yea the Aim-9P (And the P5) seem to be badly modeled atm =P. They cant turn at all. And while they were no Aim-9Xs they were pretty decent for the time (especially the Aim-9P5 should be pretty good though still worse then a Aim-9L/M when it comes to manuverability) . While with how they currently preform even a target doing a gentle 2-3G turn will evade the missile. It seems to be have like a Aim-9B (or worse) Compare it with the russian K-13M1 (Russian copy of the Aim-9J/P atleast body wise) and it turns pretty well (dont know how close to reality its FM is but it seems allot closer then what we have currently for the Aim-9P/P5)

I would not say that even the latest JA 37 (JA 37DI) was more advanced then even the early JAS 39As. It was comparable in some areas (such as the datalink and air-air weapons and some computer systems etc) But it was not more advanced in general.

If we start with the Viggen. The Viggen has multiple variants with the two main variants being the AJ 37 (early strike variant) and JA 37 (later fighter variant) and they later had some upgrades over time which turned the AJ 37 into the AJS 37 that we are getting. But tech wise the two are very different. The AJ 37 is a early 1970s aircraft and as such should be seen as an earlier generation of aircraft then the F-16. While it might have been the highest level tech that generation had to offer it was still an earlier design. But in terms of air-ground duties etc the AJ 37 and F-16A are pretty comparable since the F-16A does not have a targeting pod or many guided munitions etc so they are pretty comparable in their air-ground capabilities even if the AJ 37 is using an older level of tech (as it entered service in 1971 where as the F-16A entered service in 1979-1980) the JA 37 on the other hand uses comparable tech to that of the F-16A and C (superior to that of the A comparable to the C) and it kept up with the C blocks through it lifetimes with upgrades that kept it comparable in most areas and better in some even when compared to later F-16Cs like the Block 50/52. The J35 Draken is a 1960s fighter interceptor and the Swedish variant had no real air-ground capabilities (could use guns and air-air rockets against ground targets sure but that was never a mission for it) In air-air capabilities its pretty comparable to other aircraft of the time like the Mirage III,F-104 and Mig-21. And again there are multiple different J35 variants so it depends which one you are comparing with what variant of the corresponding aircraft but if we compare them by service they are pretty similar performance / tech wise. The Saab 32 Lansen is a two seater mid-late 50s aircraft with both an attack variant and a fighter variant (as well as a recce variant like all Saab Jet aircraft) With the two variants having different capabilities. Its Transonic jet so its capable of speeds just below that of mach 1 (in level flight can easily reach mach 1 in a shallow dive) The attack variant was equipped with Rockets,Unguided bombs and Anti-ship missiles (as well as internal guns) where as the fighter variant was able to carry Aim-9Bs (RB 24) and air-air rockets. Its a bit harder to compare the lansen since while the fighter variant is comparable with aircraft like the Hawker Hunter (though being faster,larger and heavier etc) the Attack variant is a bit more unique with its Radar guided Anti-Ship missiles etc. Also an interesting thing to not about the A 32 lansen. In order to save money etc not all A 32s were equipped with air-ground search radars (that were used to find ships) but generally only the flight leader (1 in 4) had an aircraft with the search radar. So he would be the one using his radar to get through terrain and to search for targets where as the rest of the flight would simply follow and launch their anti ship missiles on his mark. (especially in bad visibility etc) And thats one of the things pilots likes with the AJ 37 in that everybody had their own so they were alot less reliant on each other (since in the A32 if either you lost contact with the leader you were suddenly blind as you had no air-ground radar your self or if the Radar equipped aircraft broke down it could ground the entire flight as they would have no search radar thus limiting them to only good weather flying).

While the Aim-9P5 does not use the same seeker as the Aim-9M it has a seeker that is derived from the Aim-9M seeker (some modifications to make it cheaper to produce etc) but the seeker performance should be very similar and it uses the same techniques when it comes to flare resistance as the Aim-9M so it should be almost identical in that area. (depending on what Aim-9M we have modeled in game) But then again alot of missiles seem very flare hungry atm (that should not be)

Have not tried the Aim-9P yet (and now im off to bed) does anybody know if the Aim-9P is any better on this point or if it has the same problem.

Yea i have the same problems. The area where it can actually lock something up is minuscule and as soon as you gain the lock you usually loose it and its very hard to time it right so you launch during that half a second to a second window where you have a tone. The fact that the spot where the seeker looks at is not synced to the pipper does not help either since if you try to keep a target at the pipper you are unlikely to ever get a good tone. I also had a bug with it where after i had re-armed i would simply be unable to fire it at all. Have you tried with any of the other missiles to see if they have the same problem? only tried the Aim-9P5 myself. But yea this is something i feel like it needs to be fixed since atm its very very hard to use the Aim-P5 against maneuvering targets. ive had a few kills with it in MP (Mig-21Bis Vs F-5E server) but there are so many more kills i could have gotten if it was working properly =P.

Done some flights in her and love her so far =). Have had some missile related problems but other then that all is good. Only tried the Aim-9P5 so far but it seems VERY hard to get a good lock with it even if you are point blank behind a Mig-21 with afterburner,The area where you can get a lock is far to small and its not synced to the middle of the pipper either but is higher up. And also i what was probably a bug where after rearming and getting new missiles they would just not fire (even if i managed to get that hard to find missile lock they would just not fire). But other then that i have had no problems and she is a beauty to behold and to fly.

Looks like a Saab 32 Lansen rebuilt into a Deicing machine. it looks really funky xD.