MBot

The F-5 and Viggen are in the campaign simultaneously? It sounds as if the F-5 are assigned first (targets and escorts) and as Creech gets covered, the Viggen get the next best thing with no escorts remaining. You could try to give the Viggen more capability so that they have priority over the F-5 (all other things being equal) and then put any surplus F-5 into intercept missions to keep them out of harms way, if there are no other easy targets remaining. As you can see, setting up good campaigns is a balance act :)

I don't have the data for the RB05 and RB75T, but the regular AGM-65E/F/G has a 136 kg blast-fragmentation warhead containing 39 kg of explosives. I assume the RB75T has a similar (or the same) warhead. As a comparison, the Mk-82 contains 87 kg of explosives and the Mk-83 202 kg. I have doubts whether the RB75T is able to seriously damage sturdy concrete or steel bridges. I am sure it works great against military bridges such as:

Things you could check: -Target has an attribute that the loadout does not mirror? -Loadout has a low sortie rate? If a loadout has a sortie rate of 1, then each each aircraft will on average fly one such mission per day. -Loadout has insufficient range? You could try to disable the dominant target (give it an attribute like "cabbage") then check if the other target is selected.

Yes this is correct. You can control this by making sure that there are always sufficient alternative objectives which are scored higher than your desired threshold. If you are running into problems with this despite your regular targets, then intercept objectives are very thankful for this job. Make an intercept target with a very high aircraft requirement and your desired priority and it will suck up and block all remaining aircraft from being assigned to lower scored missions (intercept threat value is always 1). I think if you give the intercept target a radius of 0, then it should even prevent the assigned aircraft from ever launching and affecting your missions (hopefully a radius of 0 does not crash the game, haven't tested it).

Brian, you being the expert on the Tu-22M here, do you know if, when and in what numbers the Kh-15 strategic attack and anti-ship versions become operational with the Backfire fleet?

But that wasn't its sole utilization, right? As a weapon optimized for blast damage it would have been useful in various situations to move large quantities of metal, concrete or dirt. Another interesting fact I just found out about is that the m/56 used by the Lansen actually was the same British 1000lb bomb which was in service with RAF Harrier, Jaguars and Tornados. Makes me wonder even more why it wasn't put on the Viggen.

I am sure most of the bridges would be blown by the Swedish Army, but in war things often don't go according to plan. Spetsnaz could sabotage the demolition or airborne assaults could capture intact bridges prematurely. Famously during WWII the Germans failed to blow a Rhine bridge at Remagen which the Allies managed to capture intact and exploit to great effect. The Germans then spent considerable efforts, mostly fruitless, to still drop it with artillery and air strikes. I think the Viggen would have been very well suited for such a contingency. Also any bridges in Finland, which would have been key for Soviet offensives into Norrland, were only reachable by air strikes. I don't know what the official Swedish policy was regarding attacking targets outside its national borders. But I am pretty sure that Finish territory could not have been ignored during an invasion of northern Sweden, especially considering the heavy tilt on air power of the Swedish defensive doctrine. Attacking bridges in Finland would have been the equivalent of attacking transport ships in the Baltic. As such I think it is very surprising that the Viggen lacked a heavy weapon to attack strong bridges. They even had a 500kg mine bomb for the Lansen. Adopting it for the Viggen surely would have been easy.

RB-05 and RB75T warheads are still tiny when used against reinforced structures. Bridges are historically notorious for being extremely difficult to destroy. During Desert Storm, the USN dropped 34 LGB (1000lb or 2000lb) against bridges and only destroyed 3 spans. While I can see the RB-75T being useful against light structures, military bridges, pontoons or ferries, I wonder how they intended to cut the numerous major river crossings in Norrland or Lapland.

Regardless of DCS' lack of fragmentation damage, I wonder why the real Viggen was never equipped with larger calibre bombs. How did they intend to drop heavy concrete or steel bridges with the weapons at hand?

I think the air-ground AI is in dire need of a large upgrade. Currently it is capable to fly only very static level and dive attack profiles, which is adequate only for medium altitude weapon deliveries. In the low level arena, especially under threats, the AI is suffering very heavy losses due to its awkward behaviour. This is especially apparent when air defense strength, often in realistic compositions, are matched to the player, who can use the full range of options his aircraft provides. Meanwhile his AI wingmen and other AI flights are almost completely helpless. I have identified the following points, which I think are in the most urgent need for an AI upgrade: 1. Nap of the Earth flying: Currently AI wingmen will not fly lower than 150m above flat ground, regardless of how low their leader flies (Pic). AI leader are extremely incompetent in following a NOE route (waypoint altitude 30m AGL set in mission editor). I have seen AI to climb over 1000m to clear terrain (Pic). The inability to fly low level routes prevents the AI to achieve terrain masking, which is the primary reason to fly low in the first place. In effect that means the AI tends to fly very exposed, which often leads to early detection and interception, and is usually right in the engagement envelope of most air defense threats. 2. Unguided weapon precision Currently AI enjoys pinpoint aiming precision in employing unguided weapons. The only thing which affects their accuracy are the ballistic properties of the munition itself. This means that when attacking with Mk-82 for example, the AI will always score hits with the first bomb unless attacking from very high altitude (where long flight time will cause the bombs to spread). This is especially questionable if the AI aircraft is not equipped with computer aided targeting systems such as for example the F-5E. AI aiming should be overhauled and their precision with unguided munitions should depend on the sophistication of their targeting system (manual, analog computer, digital computer etc.), AI skill and amount of jinking (see below). In addition, currently the AI aims bomb salvos to hit with the first bombs. Instead salvos should be aimed with the target in the center. To underline this point with some real world data: During the Cold War the USAF planned a Phantom attacking a Soviet tank with a stick of 12 Mk-82 to have a 10% chance of disabling in. 3. Jinking When under threat by AAA the AI should be able to perform jinking but without going fully defensive. This means that it should perform small evasive maneuvers but still continue its primary flight path, such as staying in formation, during an attack run-in, during the climb in a pop-up attack or during a dive attack (for example see at 30 seconds in video). Being forced to jink during an attack should have a big impact on AI aiming precision (see above). This would make AI more survivable to air defenses and at the same time increase the effectiveness of air defenses in protecting targets. 4. Level bombing with retarded weapons The low-level attack profile with retarded munition (for example Snakeyes) should be overhauled. Currently the AI attacks by flying minimum 300m above the target (which is very high) and completely straight for a good 30 seconds. This suicidal attack just begs for the AI to be shot down. AI should be allowed to go as low as the frag avoidance of the weapon allows to, and should employ jinking during the attack. 5. Pop-up attack profile The AI should gain a pop-up attack profile which allows for a masked low-level approach while attacking with a dive. Of utmost importance is a fast and smooth combination of climb, pull-down, dive-attack and pullout, in order to limit the time the aircraft is exposed to threats to the absolute minimum. Also important is jinking during sections of straight flight of the profile. tD_FfbI9QK8 6. Toss attack profile AI should be able to perform Toss attack profiles in order to attack heavily defended targets from a distance. 7. Late target acquisition Current AI needs to acquire a target before an attack can be initiated. This is in direct conflict to some attack profiles such as pop-up, where a pre-planned target will be acquired only after the attack has been initiated.

Yes please! I keep running into having the wrong system selected all the time. Quickly measure target elevation to calculate a bomb deliver profile for the F-5E? Great, I have metric selected. End mission. Plotting waypoints for the Viggen? Great, I have imperial selected. Close the ME.

I have the game open now, but it is actually extremely hard to describe what is wrong with the sight. It just seems weird. Here is what I observe. When leaning in, the angular size of the picture seems to get smaller, when leaning out the angular size gets bigger. Having only the left eye open and leaning in straight on the sight, the picture wanders to the right. The movement seems to increase exponentially the closer you get (but is overall rather small). Having only the right eye open and leaning in straight on the sight, the picture wanders to the left. The movement does not mirror the left eye but is rather considerable bigger overall. As mentioned above, in a normal head position the picture is focused on the plain of the EP-13 sight. As you move your head closer, the plain of focus of the image seems to come out of the sight and move closer to your head. And having played around with it for 15 minutes, I now feel sick and have a headache...

But it shouldn't be focused on the plain of the sight either, right? Because what would be the purpose of the assembly in the first place then?

I need to check again this evening to give a detailed description. Generally, it does not behave as to be expected from a collimated picture. From the top of my head I remember to specific characteristics: 1. The picture is focused at the plane of the sight, not in infinity. 2. The left eye and the right eye do not see the same thing even from the same position (which they should). Reproduction: Close left eye and remember image seen by right eye. Then switch eyes. Move head to position left eye to exactly the same place right eye was. You see will see a different image even though you should see the same thing.

Have you made any progress on the collimation working correctly in VR? It seems to me that the the FLIR display rendered in the HUD in RAZBAM's AV-8B N/A works by the same principle, so it should be solvable in DCS.

That map would be perfect.

That shouldn't happen. They should all bomb their own target. Some of the fuel tanks stand very close together. Might it just seem as if they are bombing the same target? The escorts are set up to fly from the IP to the egress point in order not to enter the target area. Since this mission is so short, most interceptors will approach from the rear on the way back and the escorts might not detect them.

As you said, to each his own. But yes, really. I am interested in historical authentic scenarios, not A vs B. Having a Caucasus map with no Turkish air bases is as problematic as having an Iceland map with no Soviet air bases. The huge strategic importance of the GIUK gap is as an anti-submarine barrier. Most warfare in this area would have revolved around ASW. No relevant number of Soviet surface units or aircraft could have reached Iceland without having first defeated NATO in the Norwegian Sea and Norway. Iceland was the prize of the battle, not the scene of the battle.

Indeed. I think a setup with mountains between the sides would not be feasible unless both sides are set up to employ medium-high altitude tactics. But the lower terrain in the Kuban area could possibly work well.

It is a map for naval-air operations. Possible scenarios: carrier vs. carrier, US carrier vs. Soviet land, Soviet carrier vs. US land, land vs. land, USMC landing on Kamchatka, Soviet landing on Attu/Shemya, USMC reclaiming Attu. Everything of this were actual, realistic possibilities during war. Both sides having their own major bases is so important for map design. Please not again the same situation as the "100% Soviet airbases" Caucasus map we had since decades.

Which airports on Iceland other than Kevlavik have runways that can support the Backfire? Which airports have ramp space to support more than two Backfires (let alone a squadron or regiment)? Air spawns air infeasible. Should all those bombers drop into the water after having completed their mission? Not having a place to land screws up AI behavior anyway. Workarounds everywhere. I think it is unwise to spend considerable resources on new maps and design them from the start with workarounds in mind. Might as well have a deep look at history and gameplay, and select a design that works better. The only halfway realistic scenario I see working well for Iceland would be the Soviets having occupied the Island and US naval forces trying to reclaim it. Possible, although extremely unlikely. While this is a very nice scenario that I would certainly enjoy, it is also very limited. There are better options with more variety.

For a year now I have a NTTR Viggen campaign waiting on my HD. But since it heavily involves dispersed basing and the AI still crashes upon taking off from many of the smaller Nevada airfields, it is shelved indefinitely. The new Caucasus map looks promising, as with the vast new forested areas it could be a reasonable stand in for Sweden. The cluttered ground should also greatly improve tactical options for the Viggen. The featureless Nevada deserts are not particularly well suited to the Viggen's operational doctrine. Once stable 2.5 is released I will start to work on a Viggen campaign. The big question is still how the AI will perform. Since the AI is pretty much unable to perform NOE flight and pop-up attacks in DCS, chances are Viggen flights are going to be wiped out on most missions. Might as well be that a realistic Viggen campaign with authentic tactics and threats is unfeasable in DCS. AI is a HUGE issue for the Viggen currently.

I am still waiting for the release of the stable version to update to 2.5, so I will have a look at this later.

Here is my entry for a cheap, mostly-water map: Southern Kamchatka-Aleutians. There is a major Soviet air base at Petropavlovsk, hosting a PVO regiment and a naval aviation regiment. There are several unoccupied, austere airfield on Kamchatka that were built to accept deployments of Badger and Backfire naval strike regiments. Eareckson Air Station on Shemya frequently hosted US reconnaissance and ASW deployments. It is large enough to accept any aircraft in the US inventory. Attu also has a small airfield. Petropavlovsk is the most important submarine base of the Soviet Pacific Fleet. Other than this, Kamchatka is mostly barren wilderness. There is 1000 km of water between Petro and Shemya and as much Pacific Ocean to the south as you could ever wish for (2800 km to Midway).

So a North Atlantic map where the only place for Bears and Backfires to take off is a single NATO airbase? As much as a I love Iceland, this map would be extremely limited in utility.