TLTeo

I think it's the hat? I'm not sure because switching is so easy I don't pay attention to it, and I just do it once before getting in the Viggen's cockpit (or don't do it at all with other modules). There isn't a default really, you just press the stick/hat down to toggle between the two, and there's a small red light that turns on and off depending on what mode you're in.

I use the ministick mostly as a 4way hat (with the exception of the Viggen), and it's perfectly fine. No need to open the stick and put in the replacement imo.

Smooth I've only found pictures with the AIM-9P (and Magics obviously, but not on Spanish jets). I'm not sure why Aviodev showed the L/M in their video.

~10 minutes worth of searching returns pictures of US-based, NATO-owned, Dutch, Danish, Taiwanese, Belgian, Norwegian and Greek jets all carrying the -9P, which I guess we can conveniently ignore. Much like the existence of the -9F. The 104G operators that did not use the -P (Germany, Italy and Canada, plus Spain who replaced their fleet before the -P was a thing, and possibly Turkey who mostly flew hand-me-down jets) were more the exception than the norm. We should stay on topic though.

Nop, 1) several customers also carried the -P, just like the F-5E we have (examples: here, here, and here 2) technically you have the -B FGW2/-F which was a fair improvement over the -B, even though it looks identical and 3) the 104 also carried the AS.30 and Kormoran missiles for anti shipping, as well as the BL755 for conventional strike. But to go back on topic, I think IFE are much more likely to develop a 104 than Aviodev are. If Aviodev want to keep on with Spanish jets, there's still the Mirage 3 though

Sooo, about that case of lambrusco I promised to send you if you made this a module, I guess I'll have to come through The pocket Sabre to be exact. Aerodynamically it's similar (except it's almost half the size, it's about as large as a ww2 warbird), but its mission set is completely different.

The -G could carry a whole lot more than two AIM-9Bs though (granted, not the Spanish ones, but the avionics of other customer countries were mostly identical)....

At this point every time I see one of SUBS' posts I worry that one of my physics degrees will spontaneously catch fire

Maybe @Vibora can help out? Is there an official weapons table for anything beyond rockets, guns and the Mk82 anywhere?

One possible workaround would be to set the AI to engage at max range. If the missile kinematics are the same as player-flown Tomcats, that should get the AI to fire a bit farther out, but the missile should still have enough energy to be a threat. Obviously it's not a permanent fix though.

I'm not sure that's the only reason. Norway and Denmark joined roughly at the same time, and Belgium was much more recent.

Yeah but even that doesn't tell the whole story. From what I recall, Denmark is paying some ~110 million per F-35, Norway ~160, and Belgium ~130. The costs are just all over the place, and that's despite Norway being a partner in the program and Belgium not being one. Again, saying "an F-35 costs less than a Block 70" is just misleading.

To be honest those numbers for the F-35 vs Viper (or literally any aircraft procurement) are fairly misleading for all sorts of reasons. I wouldn't be surprised if the 120 million for the -E Viper was including development costs, and the 80 for the F-35A (the B and C both cost waaaay more) was for some huge bulk order bringing the whole cost down. And that doesn't even include whether e.g. pilot training, spare parts, maintenance, cost per flight hour etc etc are included. As far as I can tell, building an F-35A is not significantly more expensive than a 4.5gen aircraft, hence the flashy pricetag, but operating it is.

What about just implementing a ME option to disable TERNAV by default (or maybe have it not work at all)? Weapon loadouts can be limited, the recon mods are pretty minor, and purists can input the mission plan through the CK if they so desire. It's not ideal, but it's close enough and would require significantly less effort.

For the love of everything that's awesome and nerdy in the Universe just read the FAQ. It's not that hard.

That would be cool! Imagine actually having to take care of the nav system like people claim we have to do, rather than let TERNAV do all the hard work

Yeah I've been wondering the same. The Mk.82 profile does not work at all, for obvious reasons. IRL I read it's supposed to be dropped at 450 KIAS from 300ft, but obviously the C-101 is too slow for that. The solution is to fly higher to hit the same slant range, but as you said you end up having to overfly your target and wait which is annoying. I tried delivering in a dive but I got very mixed results too.

Obviously. That is why the Mirage, Hornet and Viper have one right /s

To be fair, I actually find the C-101CC to be a decent bombing platform. It's so bloody slow that even if you're off a bit on your parameters, the difference in where your bombs land is way smaller than e.g. the F-5 or Mig-19.

To some extent yes, but if your method of testing either a) has large systematic errors built in (say, because it turns out the most accurate way to get flight parameters is the infobar, and we think it displays TAS rather than ground speed or something) or b) has large statistical errors built in (let's say we are flying the turns ourselves, and we're not maintaining airspeed or altitude constant very well), then the resulting error bars from our chosen agreed method will be so large that we can't actually draw any useful conclusion. Acceleration is a derived quantity, so it's more complicated than just measuring something directly. Mitigating issue a) is why IRL flight instruments are calibrated. Factoring in issue b) is why (among other things) performance charts should be interpreted with caution.

From what I understand, in the -EB you shouldn't exceed the five minutes. In the -CC you don't need to worry about exceeding any limit.

Nop, Aviodev have said repeatedly that that's the case IRL as well, from their talks -CC pilots. In the -EB yes, you only get five minutes.

Yep, what others have said. By 4th gen fighter standards yes, it's underpowered. By trainer/light attack aircraft standards, it's perfectly fine. In the CC you can keep it on indefinitely

It's been fixed, it's had way too much thrust since release

Sigh one step forward and two steps back. The AI overhaul can't come soon enough.