Zius

It might be copyright or intellectual property. For example, system drawings for a commercial passenger aircraft may not be classified but they are definitely intellectual property, and, as such, should not be distributed on a forum like this, where ED could be held liable for content posted here. Important disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer either.

For some reason, there is no module review section on these forums. Anybody know why that is? It seems to me, that, with the ever increasing amount of modules, new users must have difficulty chosing. For sure you can look at reviews on YouTube but there are only a rather limited amount of people making those.

MiG-29A! I keep hoping... And it was in the 2023 video...

Lots of people here complaining about AI MiG-15, but I think the MiG-15 is simply a great dogfighter. As long as you manage to keep your speed up, which is not that easy, you can win a guns-only dogfight against any opponent. Once you lose energy, you are finished. The 2 × 23 mm and 1 × 37 mm cannons are brutal. One hit of the 37mm is enough for an enemy fighter. Problem is slow projectiles and small amount of rounds. But if you become compentent with gunnery in this thing, it's a beast. However, the reason why the F-16 is a better fighter is that the likelyhood of getting in a guns-only dogfight nowadays is pretty small. And the MiG-15 has zero answers against missiles. Lots of people here complaining about AI MiG-15, but I think the MiG-15 is simply a great dogfighter. As long as you manage to keep your speed up, which is not that easy, you can win a guns-only dogfight against any opponent. Once you lose energy, you are finished. The 2 × 23 mm and 1 × 37 mm cannons are brutal. One hit of the 37mm is enough for an enemy fighter. Problem is slow projectiles and small amount of rounds. But if you become compentent with gunnery in this thing, it's a beast. However, the reason why the F-16 is a better fighter is that the likelyhood of getting in a guns-only dogfight nowadays is pretty small. And the MiG-15 has zero answers against missiles.

Thanks! That's the kind of answer I am looking for. Thanks the other who replied and/or voted as well, of course. Opinions seem to vary quite a bit, but in the poll the F-16 is clearly ahead. Thanks for the comments! I have looked at Chuck's Guides, but the one for the F-16 is (IIRC) over 738 pages.... which I found "a bit" overwhelming at first glance for a "simplified" guide... I mean, it's not a flight manual... F-16 => 738 pages JF-17 => 488 F/A-18 => 712 Mirage 2000 => 335 L-39ZA Albatros => 87 (!!!) and that's the ZA version!!! That's what I call manageable This kind of comparison is hardly fair, I know. But still...

Looking at them is not the same as flying them! But, yeah, the F-16 in 322 Sqn colours does have a special appeal...

I'm not exactly new to DCS, but up to now, I mostly focussed on analogue jets, mainly Albatros and Viggen, using unguided munitions. I like the way analogue, non-FBW aircraft fly in DCS. I also like the challenge of using unguided munitions (somewhat) effectively. The Albatros and (in particular) the Viggen are my favourites because I find them very intuitive to fly. For sure, the Viggen has some interesting quirks, but once you get to understand them, I think it's great. But recently I have become more interested in the "modern fighter jet" part of DCS. In particular, BVR air-to-air combat and using laser guided bombs. I think there are three jets in DCS which meet my criteria, namely the F-16, the JF-17 and the F/A-18. The A-10 and the Harrier can't do BVR and are too slow. The Mirage 2000 can do BVR and buddy-lased bombs, but due to lack of FOX3 A2A missiles and own targeting pod I think it's out for me. I would like to get some opinions on which of the three aircraft is the most intuitive and easiest to learn to fight with. I'm not that interested in overall capability, I'm not looking for the "best" aircraft. I have all three modules already, but I'm trying to decide which one to spend time on to learn properly.

When it comes to single thread performance, the 12600 series seems the most bang for the buck... https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html Right now I am thinking about getting this: Intel Core i5-12600K Boxed Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK64GX4M2D3600C18 64GB DDR4 @ 3.600MT/s, kit of 2 Gigabyte Z690 AORUS ELITE DDR4 Samsung 980 Pro 2TB I'm keeping my GPU: GeForce GTX 1660 Super

Looks like the consensus here is to get 64G of DDR4 rather than 32G of DDR5, correct? Is there any benefit of getting DDR5 now or in the future?

War? The last time that happened was 1945, right? That's 75 years ago! Why even still have fighters? Do you know which aircraft is cheap to fly? https://forum.dcs.world/topic/264198-cessna-172/ Sure, so have the Russians and the Chinese. There is always something better coming. It just isn't here yet and won't be available in any numbers for years to come.

Sounds good to me! When it comes to GA, I have to be honest, the CE II is not the plane I fly the most, but I started her up the other day and was again impressed. What a joy it is to fly! I do hope some developer sees the potential in making 172 for DCS as well!

I understand. I used to be a huge Falcon 3.0 fan back in the day. I have Falcon 4.0 as well but never really got into it. The way I see it, the F-16 in DCS is a lot more complicated and involved than the one in Falcon 3.0. Systems are modelled in much more detail, including systems which have no direct impact on combat, like fuel systems, backup landing gear systems etc. But also the radar etc. In my opinion, the F-16, F/A-18 and A-10 (and JF-17 and Ka-50) may well be the most complicated modules to learn in DCS due to the amount of systems and the depth in which they are modelled. By comparison, the Albatros (my personal favourite) is a lot easier, and more about the flying than about learning systems. Again, in my opinion, especially if you are limited in time, I would recommend a simpler aircraft over the F-16. But I understand that if you know a plane already from a different sim, you are eager to compare. I guess it also comes down to what you can afford... I have nearly all modules, but fly only a few of them somewhat regularly. What I did find out is that the planes I like best in DCS are not at all the same ones which I like IRL. In my opinion there is a huge difference between the appeal of an aircraft as DCS pilot vs as an armchair-general or aviation enthousiast. First of all, there is no any reason that you have to fly online. Actually I never fly online myself. Most modules come with built-in training missions, where the voice-over tells you what do, which buttons to press etc. When you have completed all training missions (likely you will repeat the same missions a few times), you should more or less know how to fly and operate the plane. After that, you'll need to practice to get to grips with the peculiarities of the aircraft you are flying. For example the MiG-15 has enormously powerful cannons, but their projectiles are very slow so gunnery needs a lot of practice before "getting it". I would imagine that with the F-16 you want to go really in depth into the various radar modes etc. Keep in mind though: the F-16 is still Early Access and not feature complete at the moment. When you really know how the aircraft works, you can either create missions for yourself using the mission editor, fly missions that someone else made or fly one of the "official" campaigns. Or fly online if you like. Bottom line: what a lot of people don't understand: DCS is a sandbox sim. You can do whatever you want as long as the units are available. With regards to scenario's there is no limit to realism or lack thereof. If you want to do air-to-air combat with an A-10C, you can set up a mission to do that. If you want to see how many Bf-109's you can take on with your Tomcat, you can. If you want ultra-realistic missions, you can as well. It's up to you. DCS doesn't limit you. The downside of that approach is the lack of a dynamic campaign and the lack of roleplaying.

There are campaigns but they are basically a series of scripted missions. There is a dynamic campaign in the works and it should be released soon-ish. In my opinion, however, the greatest thing about DCS is the mission editor where you can create any kind of mission with a difficulty level that you feel is good. Yes there are. And they are country specific as well. You set your country in your profile and you'll get more or less appropriate national rewards based on mission success. But, although it is a nice touch, DCS is by far not a "role playing game" like Falcon 3.0 was, in some way. It's not unlike the PC that I have and it will do fine. However if you plan on flying missions with a lot of other planes, your RAM may run out. Yes. The advantage of a clickable cockpit is that HOTAS becomes much less important. Or at least that's my opinion. Of course you can / should map the buttons which you use most to suitable buttons on your controllers. What is more important is that your joystick is precise enough. Especially non-FBW aircraft can be really touchy on the controls. If you try arcade-style banking in an Albatros for example, you'll stall and crash. If you do the same in a Viggen at top speed, then the aircraft will immediately disintegrate due to G-forces... A light hand really helps with the flying and a good joystick will make it way more enjoyable. FBW aircraft like the F-16 are much less difficult. Most modules, especially the ones outside Early Access, come with full manuals. However I also recommend looking up the Chuck's Guides. They may also help you selecting the right module for you. F-16 may be the logical choice but I recommend a bit older non-FBW aircraft as they bring out the best in DCS. Maybe try the F-5?

One thing that you may want to keep in mind is that most / all planes from one of the two cold war blocks (Western and Eastern) share a design philosophy. This means it's relatively easy to transfer from Albatros to MiG-15 to MiG-21 etc. Sadly more modern Soviet planes are missing outside FC3. The same goes to some extent for Western planes, although I don't find it that intuitive to switch from a mostly analogue F-5 to a mostly glass F-18. This could be due to lack of experience from my side as well. But from F-18 to A-10 should be easier. The other thing that may be relevant are the units used. Soviet planes (and the Viggen) use metric units (km/h, m, bar etc.), Western planes (and JF-17 AFAIK) use imperial units (kn, ft, psi etc.). I'm from the Netherlands, used to metric units, and this is one of the reasons why I find Soviet planes more intuitive to fly.

While this is to some extent true, for me, the biggest revelation of DCS was how much fun aircraft can be that are NOT the most glamorous ones. For sure, I did not have a poster of an Albatros above my bed as a teenager. The Tomcat was one of my favourites. It was badass. In DCS it's also badass, but unfortunately I don't have a human available in the backseat. The F-16 was another one of my favourites, but in DCS I find it rather boring to fly to be honest... But in general, I found it really difficult to predict which model I'd like, and of the three that I like most (Albatros, MiG-15, Viggen), only the Viggen was a favourite of mine before DCS. It seems that sometimes you fall in love with the idea of an aircraft, based on looks, history and performance statistics, only to find out that from a "pilot" perspective, things can be very different...

My suggestion would be to start with one of the jet trainers. The L-39 Albatros if you are interested in Soviet / Eastern European aircraft (metric units / gauges), or the C-101 if you are interested in NATO / Western aircraft (imperial units / gauges). There are a couple of reasons for this: 1) Flying experience. In my opinion, one of the strengths of DCS is the way flight is modelled. In modern fighters, bad flying can be compensated by opening the throttle and masked by FBW computers. In my experience, modern fighters like the F-16 and the Mirage 2000 feel quite "arcade" like. This is no critism of the planes, they should feel like this. But at the same time, with the Albatros / C-101, you feel like you are actually flying an airplane. Move the stick too abrubtly, the plane will stall. Try to climb without gaining energy first, it will be very slow. When heavily loaded, you may even crash. 2) Easy systems. The other main strength of DCS is how deeply systems are modelled. Complex aircraft like the A-10C have lots of systems and can be overwhelming to learn. The trainers have less systems to deal with. No radar, no IR imaging systems etc., just the more basic systems like engine management, fuel management, navigation, back-up systems etc. Try flying with the IFR hood on in the Albatros. Flying the aircraft just by relying on analogue gauges without being able to look outside... If you manage to learn this, then adding other systems when you move to more complex aircraft will be easier. 3) Sense of accomplishment. This may sound strange but I find it immensely satisfying if I manage to destroy an armored column with my lowly Albatros. Many people forget or don't understand this, but DCS is a sandbox simulator. So you can make missions as easy or challenging as you want. Sure, a F-16 is way more capable than an Albatros in every respect, but depending on how you set up the mission, you may not need this capability. It's not about "better", it's about having fun and about learning. I can honestly say that while I have most modules, the Albatros gets the most flight time, followed by the Viggen and the MiG-15. The reason for this is that I don't have the time to thoroughly study the complex systems of the F-16 etc., and also because I really enjoy the feeling of flight in the older non-FBW jets. The FC3 aircraft I would mosty avoid. I find it actually much more easy to operate the various systems by clicking the switch rather than trying to memorise keys or HOTAS buttons. Free mods, I don't have much experience with them, I understand some are pretty good, but I would prefer a module which has the benefit of ED quality control.

Why wouldn't it? Modern SAM systems still can't look over the horizon, so depending on the terrain you may avoid known SAM installations or at least limit their envelope. But you are right, "jam, suppress or destroy the IADS on the way to the target." did work well in Iraq which was I guess fairly capable at the time.

GBU-39 would not be stand-off in a scenario where the enemy has, for example, plenty of S-300 / S-400 systems. In such a scenario you would probably need long-range (cruise) missiles to stand a chance. Or... go back to low-level flying? Yes, you are right. But I would say that the most effective low level aircraft were 1970's-1980's aircraft like the Tornado. In principle that is correct, but I get the feeling that stealth vs. radar is a kind of arms race, where I guess it's easier to improve radar than stealth features. Although it is obviously difficult to get any specifics, it seems modern radars are not doing too badly against stealth. Stealth probably still decreases detection/engagement range but perhaps not enough. But I guess all of that is somewhat off-topic. In any case, while dropping GBU's from high altitude works fine in Afghanistan and similar places, I'm not sure about an all-out war between the US and Russia or China, hypothetically speaking.

At the last stages of the Cold War, doctrine on both sides dictated that low-level flying was the only way to penetrate the anticipated heavily defended (mainly by SAM but also by CAP / AWACS) enemy air space. However the last 20 years or so we have had mostly fairly one-sided wars without too much opposition in terms of air defence (at least from a Western perspective) and it seems that NATO now has only high-level ground attack missions since the only threat are guns (incl. AA guns) and MANPADS. Also I suppose that stealth aircraft have somewhat shifted the perspective in terms of potential large scale combat against a strong adversary. But personally I think that stealth may be of somewhat limited use against a modern adversary and low-level flying would still be the way to go. Any thoughts?

Not a specialist by any means, but perhaps this is interesting: https://www.rfwireless-world.com/Terminology/Half-duplex-radio-vs-Full-duplex-radio.html

That may very well be, but there are also much better graphics cards than my GTX 1660... Still I am pretty satisfied with my setup, also given the price what I bought it for. While I think the Warthog is pretty expensive (and probably overpriced) it is still cheaper than Virpil and most VKB products. I am not saying it's more value for your money though. Additionally it's pretty well supported by DCS and the community. To be honest, as long as it works, I'm not looking for something else, even if money were no problem at all.

I would also recommend a desktop rather than a laptop. I have run DCS on a laptop, and an older, non-gaming one at that, so it's possible but it's not optimal in any way. One big advantage of a desktop is the ability to upgrade components later. In terms of graphics cards, I have a GeForce GTX 1660 Super, which I think is a pretty good card for a reasonable price. I am able to run DCS smoothly with near maximum settings. If there are a lot of other aircraft my PC struggles a bit, but I'm not sure if that is due to the graphics card. I think it's a lack of RAM, I have 8 GB which is on the low side. I also recommend a SSD with enough room, I would recommend at least 500GB but preferably 1TB. With regards to stick / throttle, I have a Thrustmaster Warthog set. I am very happy with it, although it may be possible that VKB / Virpil are better. In any case the Warthog is pretty widely available and I found the build quality quite fantastic in terms of feel, even though there are people complaining about it. So far I have not had any problems. I think I have them 3 years now. My pedals are the cheap ones from Thrustmaster and they are, well, cheap. And especially too light. Not surpisingly. They do the job but I wouldn't recommend them unless you are on a budget. If you fly helicopters, pedals are an absolute must and then I find them lacking. For propellor aircraft, pedals are highly recommended but for that I think they are adequate. For jet aircraft, I often don't bother plugging them in, using the z/x keys instead while taxi-ing.

Another thing you need to consider: all planes developed in Germany itself after the war were designed to fit NATO doctrines. There were some marked differences between NATO doctrines and WW2 German doctrines and it would make sense if Axis Germany would have continued evolving their own doctrines rather than adopt NATO ones.

So even if the basic layout of the "Ta-183 family" is the same, the specs are quite different. Another post-war aircraft by a German designer, in this case Willy Messerschmitt: the Hispano Aviación / Helwan Ha-300 (interestingly with for the 3rd prototype an engine designed by the Austrian-German Brandner) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helwan_HA-300 And the HAL HF-24 Marut designed by Kurt Tank: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_HF-24_Marut These aircraft area more difficult to compare with similar types, but in any case they are quite different from aircraft of the same age. Neither was a great success but that is likely due to the limitations of the countries of origin.

It's an interesting question... But I don't think you can say that 4th Gen Axis Germany = Eurofighter because Eurofighter has had significant input from the UK as well as from Italy and Spain. Yes, after WW2, the US and USSR took a lot of research from Germany but that doesn't mean the resulting aircraft would be the same. For example, look at the Ta-183, which was in development at the end of WW2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Ta_183 You can easily say that this aircraft influenced both the MiG-15 and the F-86 Sabre as well as the Saab 29 Tunnan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_F-86_Sabre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_29_Tunnan Kurt Tank himself used the basis of the Ta-183 to create the Pulqui II: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMA_IAe_33_Pulqui_II You can compare for yourself the data from Wikipedia: Ta 183 Pulqui II MiG-15bis F-86F-40-NA Saab Tunnan Crew: 1 Crew: one Crew: 1 Crew: 1 Crew: 1 Length: 9.4 m (30 ft 10 in) Length: 11.68 m (38 ft 4 in) Length: 10.102 m (33 ft 2 in) Length: 37 ft 1 in (11.30 m) Length: 10.23 m (33 ft 7 in) Wingspan: 10 m (32 ft 10 in) Wingspan: 10.6 m (34 ft 9 in) Wingspan: 10.085 m (33 ft 1 in) Wingspan: 39 ft 1 in (11.91 m) Wingspan: 11 m (36 ft 1 in) Height: 3.86 m (12 ft 8 in) Height: 3.5 m (11 ft 6 in) Height: 3.7 m (12 ft 2 in) Height: 14 ft 1 in (4.29 m) Height: 3.75 m (12 ft 4 in) Wing area: 22.5 m2 (242 sq ft) Wing area: 25.1 m2 (270 sq ft) Wing area: 20.6 m2 (222 sq ft) Wing area: 313.4 sq ft (29.12 m2) Wing area: 24.15 m2 (259.9 sq ft) Empty weight: 2,830 kg (6,239 lb) Empty weight: 3,736 kg (8,236 lb) Airfoil: root: TsAGI S-10; tip: TsAGI SR-3[113] Airfoil: root: NACA 0009-64 mod.; tip: NACA 0008.1-64 mod.[93] Empty weight: 4,845 kg (10,681 lb) Gross weight: 4,300 kg (9,480 lb) Gross weight: 6,875 kg (15,157 lb) Empty weight: 3,681 kg (8,115 lb) Empty weight: 11,125 lb (5,046 kg) Max takeoff weight: 8,375 kg (18,464 lb) Powerplant: 1 × Heinkel HeS 011 turbojet, 13 kN (2,900 lbf) thrust Powerplant: 1 × Rolls-Royce Nene II turbojet, 22.69 kN (5,100 lbf) thrust Gross weight: 5,044 kg (11,120 lb) Gross weight: 15,198 lb (6,894 kg) Powerplant: 1 × Svenska Flygmotor RM2B centrifugal-flow turbojet engine with afterburning, 27.0 kN (6,070 lbf) thrust Max takeoff weight: 6,106 kg (13,461 lb) with 2x600 l (160 US gal; 130 imp gal) drop-tanks Max takeoff weight: 18,152 lb (8,234 kg) Fuel capacity: 1,420 l (380 US gal; 310 imp gal) internal Fuel capacity: JP-4 fuel:- 437 US gallons (364 imp gal; 1,650 L) internals + 2x 200 US gallons (170 imp gal; 760 L) drop tanks Powerplant: 1 × Klimov VK-1 centrifugal-flow turbojet, 26.5 kN (5,950 lbf) thrust Powerplant: 1 × General Electric J47-GE-27 turbojet engine, 5,910 lbf (26.3 kN) thrust Performance Performance Performance Performance Performance Maximum speed: 955 km/h (593 mph, 516 kn) Maximum speed: 1,080 km/h (670 mph, 580 kn) Maximum speed: 1,076 km/h (669 mph, 581 kn) at sea level Maximum speed: 687 mph (1,106 km/h, 597 kn) at sea level at 14,212 lb (6,446 kg) combat weight Maximum speed: 1,060 km/h (660 mph, 570 kn) Service ceiling: 14,000 m (46,000 ft) Cruise speed: 954 km/h (593 mph, 515 kn) Range: 1,100 km (680 mi, 590 nmi) Rate of climb: 20.4 m/s (4,020 ft/min) Range: 3,090 km (1,920 mi, 1,670 nmi) 1,107 km/h (688 mph; 598 kn) / M0.9 at 3,000 m (9,843 ft) 678 mph (589 kn; 1,091 km/h) / M1.02 Service ceiling: 15,500 m (50,900 ft) Wing loading: 196 kg/m2 (40 lb/sq ft) Endurance: 2 hours, 50 minutes 599 mph (521 kn; 964 km/h) at 35,000 ft (10,668 m) at 15,352 lb (6,964 kg) Rate of climb: 32.1 m/s (6,320 ft/min) Thrust/weight: 0.37 Service ceiling: 15,000 m (49,000 ft) Maximum speed: Mach 0.87 at sea level 597 mph (519 kn; 961 km/h) at 21,148 ft (6,446 m) Rate of climb: 25.5 m/s (5,020 ft/min) Cruise speed: 850 km/h (530 mph, 460 kn) Mach 0.69 599 mph (521 kn; 964 km/h) at 22,835 ft (6,960 m) Ferry range: 2,520 km (1,570 mi, 1,360 nmi) at 12,000 m (39,370 ft) with 2x600 l (160 US gal; 130 imp gal) drop-tanks Service ceiling: 15,500 m (50,900 ft) Stall speed: 124 mph (200 km/h, 108 kn) Rate of climb: 51.2 m/s (10,080 ft/min) Range: 1,525 mi (2,454 km, 1,325 nmi) Wing loading: 296.4 kg/m2 (60.7 lb/sq ft) Combat range: 414 mi (666 km, 360 nmi) with two 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs and 2x 200 US gallons (170 imp gal; 760 L) drop tanks[94] Thrust/weight: 0.54 Service ceiling: 49,600 ft (15,100 m) at combat weight Rate of climb: 9,000 ft/min (46 m/s) at sea level Time to altitude: 30,000 ft (9,144 m) in 5 minutes 12 seconds Lift-to-drag: 15 Thrust/weight: 0.42 Armament Armament Armament Armament Armament Guns: 4 × 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108 cannon Guns: 4 × 20 mm (0.79 in) Hispano-Suiza HS.404 Guns: Guns: 6 X 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M3 Browning machine guns (1,800 rounds in total) Guns: Hardpoints: 4 2 × 23 mm Nudelman-Rikhter NR-23 autocannon in the lower left fuselage (80 rounds per gun, 160 rounds total) Rockets: variety of rocket launchers; e.g.: 2 Matra rocket pods with 18 SNEB 68 mm rockets per pod Missiles: 4 × Ruhrstahl X-4 Wire Guided AAMs 1 × 37 mm Nudelman N-37 autocannon in the lower right fuselage (40 rounds total) Bombs: 5,300 lb (2,400 kg) of payload on four external hardpoints, bombs were usually mounted on outer two pylons as the inner pairs were plumbed for 2 200 US gallons (760 L) drop tanks which gave the Sabre a more useful range. A wide variety of bombs could be carried (max standard loadout being two 1,000 lb bombs plus two drop tanks), napalm canisters and could have included a tactical nuclear weapon. 4 x 20 mm (0.79 in) akan m/47C (license produced Hispano Mark V) autocannon with 180 rounds per gun Bombs: 500 kg (1,102 lb) of bombs Hardpoints: 2 with provisions to carry combinations of: Bombs: 100 kg (220 lb) bombs Hardpoints: Other: drop tanks, or unguided rockets 8 inner hardpoints for rocket/missile pylons; inner hardpoint only capable of carrying one smaller rocket due to the landing gear[41] 2 outer hardpoints for drop tanks or incendiary bombs, however tests were conducted with carrying rockets on this hardpoint: 8 x 75 mm Bofors, 2-4 x 103 mm Bofors or 1 x 180 mm Bofors rocket could be carried per drop tank hardpoint via a dedicated pylon[41] Rockets: 75 mm (3.0 in) srak m/55 (Bofors 75 mm (3.0 in) rocket "Frida")[41] air-to-air rocket with contact fuze high-capacity warhead;[42] 2-4 rockets per pylon up to a total of 24 80 mm (3.1 in) prak m/46C (RP-3 with sloped fins of Swedish design)[41][42] air-to-ground rocket with 80 mm (3.1 in) armour-piercing warhead; 1 rocket per pylon up to a total of 8 145 mm (5.7 in) psrak m/49 (Bofors 103 mm (4.1 in) rocket)[41] air-to-ground rocket with 145 mm (5.7 in) shaped charge warhead; 1-2 rockets per pylon up to a total of 14 150 mm (5.9 in) srak m/51 (Bofors 103 mm (4.1 in) rocket)[41] air-to-ground rocket with 150 mm (6 in) high-explosive warhead; 1-2 rockets per pylon up to a total of 14 180 mm (7.1 in) hprak m/49 (Bofors 180 mm (7.1 in) rocket)[41] air-to-ground rocket with semi armor-piercing, high-explosive warhead; 1 rocket per pylon up to a total of 4 Missiles: Rb 24 (AIM-9B Sidewinder) air-to-air missile; carried on the third hardpoint from the center Bombs: 200 kg (441 lb) brandb m/51 incendiary bomb; carried in on the drop tank hardpoint[40] 600 kg (1,323 lb) drop tanks could be armed as incendiary bombs in the air or filled with napalm from the start; carried in on the drop tank hardpoint