TLTeo

To be precise, a more swept wing and especially a big delta wing requires more AoA to generate a given amount of lift (compared to, say, a straight wing in a warbird), and drag increases with higher AoA.

Fly high doesn't mean try to orbit as close as possible to the service ceiling and yes, at high AoA a tailless delta wing produces lots of drag. That's perfectly normal.

I'll also add that this behavior is fairly consistent with what you would expect from the Farmer. All that raw power gets you good subsonic and transonic performance, but its aerodynamics are not exactly refined so you'll end up hitting a barrier at mildly supersonic speeds. I'm not saying the FM is spot on, it may or may not be and I don't have the data to comment on that (plus, others have shown there are areas where more work is indeed needed), just that its performance is not unbelievable.

I'm sure you're asking a rhetorical question but yeah, the DCS community is obsessed with "one jet against the world" scenarios, particularly on airquake/MP servers.

The Viper also carries a jammer pod on the centerline station, that has nothing to do with the number of HARMs carried (plus, the Tornado ECR outer pylons can't carry HARMs anyway, so that argument doesn't work). "US doctrine" (whatever that means) has nothing to do with the simple concept that in the real world, unlike in DCS, you don't gain anything and lose lots by loading ALL the weapons and no fuel. And whether a jet is retired or not has nothing to do with your point about "only two bombs". The F-117 is a younger design than the Viper, and about the same age as the C model anyway...

Yeah sorry, I'm used to people claiming too much outlandish stuff on here I still have scars from the time I got in an argument with someone claiming the F-111 was also a fighter with excellent air to air performance...

edit: I"m an idiot, my bad

Because the number of HARMs a jet can carry is not even remotely close to being the only factor deciding whether it's a good SEAD jet or not. Case in point: the Growler, Prowler, Tornado ECR, and F-4G are much more specialized than the F-16C, all routinely carried two HARMs, not four, and all have performed that mission very effectively in the past ~40 years in a variety of theaters and operations. And on a note about "you don't make a bomber that can only carry two bombs..." let me introduce you to the F-117 Nighthawk, which routinely carried two GBU-12s. Honestly, I'm not a fan of frankenloadouts like 4 HARMs, but it's not the end of the world either as long as it's not completely ridicolous like carrying the Meteor. If you're flying airquake whatever you do is glorified War Thunder anyway. If you fly with a squadron doing realistic ops you won't have unrealistic loadouts. If you fly SP only like me, you can adjust loadouts.

Yep, correct on the F-111B. The origin of the system are actually in the AIM-47 missile and AN/ASG-18 radar that were supposed to equip the YF-12 and XF-108 .

Also in general, the DCS community obsesses over random 1v1, long range, TWS kills way too much, because that's how airquake works. I suspect in a real world situation where you're fighting as a coordinated 2-4 ship, falling back to STT launches if you suspect your target is a maneuverable fighter with a RWR better than an SPO-10 would probably work fine.

Off the top of my head, the issues people tend to complain about are: 1) The radar antenna doesn't quite slew correctly, when you try to increase its elevation it goes through every bar rather than tilting instantly like with other radars. RB have marked this as an ED issue, so who knows when it will be solved 2) The CCIP pipper for high drag bombs is slightly inaccurate. RB claim it is not, and you have to deliver the bombs with a dive bomb profile, despite the fact that this profile results in the jet barely clearing the ground while pulling up. Snakeeyes are still usable, just don't expect to take out a single target with a single bomb (which to be fair is fine - the fact that other jets can do it is pretty unrealistic) 3) The INS has always been barely modelled, and recently drift has been messy to the point of people completely disabling it. It seems like that work is going on that front, so that's nice 4) The IP bombing modes have accuracy issues; I'm not sure whether they have been solved or not, but RB have marked it as a very low priority issue so it's likely going to stay that way for a long time. All in all it's a fine jet imo, the best out of Razbam's. It also comes with excellent single player content. The only truly annoying bug is the antenna elevation.

Yet

@IronMike, out curiosity, at which point would you consider banning CSGO from this forum? At this point, it's clear his posting is not going to change and he's not interested in any semblance of constructive discussion.

Clarified that fix for ya honestly, just assume RB have not announced nor planned any module beyond the Mirage, Harrier and Farmer until those things actually show up in the DCS shop. Before that moment, it's all PR and no substance. They have "announced" far, FAR more modules than ED themselves while their company is a tiny fraction of ED's size.

Yea that can't be the reason why one would use zone 2, the speed limit on the gear is like 600 km/h. And again, in the video I posted all the jets are clearly using full AB. Besides, if you need to take off in only a few hundred meters with a combat loadout (as the Viggen was designed to do), you need zone 3, there's no way around that.

And the Mirage 2000, and the AI Mig-27 and Su-30 It would be interesting, though I suspect it may be too politically delicate for ED to try it.

Yep, you can get rounds on target if you pull the trigger a bit after the wings appear on the gunsight, but that's obviously incorrect procedure.

To be fair, it's a commercial airliner engine with an afterburner strapped on, you get almost twice the thrust going from dry to AB. IRL it would take off in full burner even when carrying just the centerline tank: You can even see the 3 AB zones kicking in one after the other.

If you're carrying any meaningful number of stores you're going to struggle to exceed that speed anyway. Honestly the Mach 1.3 meme only really applies to airquake people who only carry RB 74s. I would like to see it fixed, but it's not thaaaat big of a deal for strike missions.

It's literally the OP but yeah, the art looks done and in in November they said the FM was done as well. It won't be this month, but it shouldn't be too long imo.

These polls also always have so few respondents that they are just not representative at all of the module's potential customer base

To be picky, the Viggen was released in early 2017 so we've just entered the 4th year. I agree it's a very long time, but I do prefer this method to RB's way of arbitrarily declaring incomplete products to be out of EA, leaving key features as "future implementation" (whatever that means). It's good to know that they're doing the final push though, hopefully the last issues will be sorted out soon.

True, but it does get hairy when the jet noses down at transonic speeds and you're egressing after a strike at 10m AGL looking for AA and SAMs around you Honestly I think the best summary of the Viggen is - do you like airquake and online dogfighting? If yes, it's not really the module for you unless you want a challenge. Do you like air to ground missions, and especially single player? If yes, then the Viggen is VERY much for you. It comes with excellent SP content, and there's lots more in the users section. And to just note those that say "the Viggen can't perform CAS because it's not an A-10" - that option is definitely there in the same way that it's there for anything that isn't an A-10. The Viggen carries the same amount of Mavericks as a Hornet (or a Viper with a non Hoggit loadout) after all, and the RB-05/gunpod loadout is decent too. Obviously it doesn't have all the goodies of a 4th gen US jet, but it's a better CAS jet than an F-5 or Mirage imo. ps most rocket/bomb/gunpod delivery modes do not require QFE settings contrary to popular belief, because the Viggen preforms radar ranging automatically. Off the top of my head, only the NAV/Radar and high drag/CCIP bombing modes need QFE to be accurate.

I like how a thread about early Cold War British jet instantly descended into another Phantom fest. I want that module as much as anyone, but stay on topic eh

Yeah. Considering that a lot of the trouble with the program came from the -B, I think that if they built one plane to replace the Viper and Hornet, and another to replace the Harrier and A-10, they would have saved a lot of money and ended up with better performing jets.