MBot

From my (limited) experience with the jammer, it seems to cause SAMs to miss every once in a while (perhaps one in 5-10) that would otherwise have tracked well. This is not good enough to depend on and therefore you have to go evasive anyway, which will put the SAM outside the coverage of the jammer. Therefore it doesn't make much sense to carry the pod in the first place. If jammers (and chaff) in DCS could actually break established radar locks, they would be a lot more useful. One important attribute of SAMs is their reaction time, which is the time they need from target detection to missile launch. Older systems generally need longer, which can be exploited. SA-6 takes about 35 second, followed by SA-8 with 30 seconds. This is long enough to approach covered by terrain/clutter and to perform a successful pop-up attack within the engagement envelope of the threat. Newer generation systems such as SA-10, SA-11 and SA-15 have reaction times of just a couple seconds which generally put them above things the Viggen can handle. The SA-3 is a bit of an outsider. Its old age suggests it would be slow to react, but in DCS it will actually shoot within 10 seconds. I really like to pair SA-6 and SA-8 with the Viggen as they are from the same era. The SAMs are deadly if you approach them carelessly, but they can be avoided by applying appropriate tactics. This is great for gameplay and historically authentic. The double-digit SAMs generally are no-fly zones on the other hand.

Target motion tracking has been disabled as default setting some time after release. I tried to use it a couple if times against moving ships by turning it on again manually, but it is a pain to use :)

That would be great. I think working replays would probably also increase the number of Viggen videos that are being produced.

Since we recently had a good streak of fixes, did you already had the time to look at this? The pop-up functionality would be very useful to have working, especially the correct entered distance to the target point.

Thank you Cobra, very good to hear about the progress on the Viggen. There are still quite a few bugs with the module, but I feel recently they are being fixed steadily. It seems the module is getting in good shape and I am looking forward very much to new content in order for the Viggen to find it's proper place within DCS. Can you share any news about getting the Maverick sight to work correctly in VR? The recent Harrier got a working collimated FLIR display on the HUD (which also works in VR), which I think is the technology required for the EP-13 sight. There are quite a few AI issues with base DCS which have a very pronounced effect on the Viggen. While I understand that these are the responsibilities of Eagle Dynamics, since they affect your module in particular, are you aware of them and have you talked with ED about addressing them? - AI Viggen being unable to take off from short airfields (link), which is a signature capability of the aircraft. - AI wingmen being unable to match players altitude in low level flight and AI-lead flights being unable to do proper NOE flights (link). Again a signature property of the Viggen and the primary combat tactic of the Swedish Air Force, which the current DCS AI is unable to perform. - Ships receiving air search radars with proper range and being capable to act as EWR (EWR units in DCS can vector AI fighters to targets). This would be needed to set up anti-ship missions with properly defended naval forces (fighter cover), which in turn can be defeated by the Viggen pilot by approaching at low level under the radar horizon (further description). Again a signature tactic of the Viggen, which is currently not required in DCS. The Viggen is one of my favorite aircraft in DCS and I am looking forward to having the best possible and immersive experience with it. I am also very excited to learn about details what you have in store map wise. As you know I have my Dynamic Campaign Engine in place and already did a couple of campaigns, some which I think came out quite well. I am sitting on hot coals to finally apply it to the Viggen once it is truly ready.

Thank you, this is fantastic! So RB75 could be loaded on the wing stations, but apparently never more than 2. What is very interesting about this list is the large number of asymmetric loadouts to mix A-G ordinance, Sidewinders (often just 1) and pods. Combining one RB05 and one RB24 for example makes a lot of sense, since you can't fire two RB05 in a single attack anyway (and you generally do not want to re-attack). I really like this loadout: KB - RB75 - XT - RB24 - RB75

My hope for Heatblur's Tomcat map is a recreation of the North Cape map from Jane's F/A-18: It is watery and cold as previously hinted by HB. It allows among other things for the defense of Norway from a Soviet invasion and the Battle of the Norwegian Sea, which would have been the largest naval battle since WWII. 3-4 US carrier battle groups were expected to operate in this area to stop any advance by the Soviet Northern Fleet's submarine-, surface- and naval aviation-forces, as well as to support the land-defense of Northern Norway. There is room for the Northern Fleet's home base at Murmansk with it's surrounding naval aviation and interceptor bases. Once the Northern Fleet would have been attrited, US carriers were expected to move forward into the Barents Sea to strike the Soviet homeland itself. As the cherry on top, the theater also works for the Viggen to defend Norrland from a Soviet invasion/incursion (the Soviets might do a shortcut through neutral Finland/Sweden to outflank NATO defenses in Norway).

As much as I like Iceland, it has a major problem. Where do the Soviets take off from? If the answer is the Kola peninsula, then we are talking about a gigantic map that also includes North Norway and the Norwegian Sea. Then why not just cut Iceland and stick with the Murmansk area, North Norway and the Norwegian Sea? After all that is where the battle for the northern flank would have been fought in the first place. Iceland was important for the SOSUS barrier and a prime target for Speznaz. But it was not the scene for the carrier battles (that was beyond Iceland in the Norwegian Sea) and it was no initial target for a Soviet invasion. At least not before the Soviets had defeated the bulk of the US Navy and captured Norway.

Well, I found the problem. In fact there seem to be multiple issues with the jammer. 1. For the U22/A pod, the program, B-E + F is not emitting. B-E + G-K is working. According to the manual, F should also emit. Since F is the default position on the second knob, this is an easy bug to walk into. 2. In an air-start, the selector is on A per default (which is pre-heat for U22/A). If you actually want pre-heat to work, you have to manually cycle the switch to 0 and back to A again. 3. U22 doesn't seem to pre-heat in either A or B with or without any cycling. 4. U22 doesn't emit in its sole mode A.

Perhaps it is a version 2.2 thing, but it doesn't work for me.

That is exactly my point, graphic/text A and B are contradictory.

This is nice, but it is for the AJS and not the AJ37.

This is most likely related to the distance of the attack waypoint to the target. This is a very fragile affair to get right for the AI. There is an automation in place for bomb-type loadouts that determines the distance depending on speed and altitude, but that doesn't always work correctly. You can override this by entering your own manual distance with the standoff-value in your loadout-table (for missile-type loadouts it is mandatory to enter the value). If that happens you can run DEBUG_DebriefMission.bat manually. In this case, the error message should persist and hopefully provide a pointer to where the problem is. Currently there is a 90% chance that the targeted radar will shut down within 5-15 seconds. I think this is about in line with historical experience with ARMs. If you want to change the values, you can modify "Scripts\Mission Scripts\ARM_Defence_Script.lua". Can you post a screenshot of the error message? Then I can write an exception for the case.

Should HB go ahead and build a Baltic theater around the Viggen and Draken, then this would also be a strong point towards a German Marineflieger Tornado.

I did check it approaching a SA-6.

Now that we have the Harrier with the FLIR image collimated on the HUD (also in VR), shouldn't the EP-13 work as well? As far as I know it works by the same principles.

I think the MOTVERK light is due to the KB pod. If I only load the jammer without the KB pod, I no longer get a MOTVERK light. It did work some months ago.

So what would be the correct option?

Thank you, greatly appreciated.

One thing to consider is the early poor TV-seeker of the RB75. As it depended on contrast, it needed to be very close to actually lock-on a target. In highly cluttered scenes it might as well lock on to a bush or tree. If the sun stood low, it might lock-on to shadows. In poor light, poor weather, dust, haze or battlefield smoke conditions, it might not be able to lock-on at all. Against large targets such as bridges or ships, the missile might target an undesirable area or miss altogether, as the seeker was drawn to the extreme ends of large targets. Here is what a F-4/F-16 pilot had to say on it: Note that the AGM-65B has the doubled seeker magnification, which the Swedish Air Force never actually acquired (RB75B). The Viggen only carried RB75/RB75T which is a AGM-65A with a shaped-charge or larger blast-fragmentation warhead. So while on paper the RB75 was a superior weapon to the RB05 in most respects, if the ability of the TV seeker to successfully lock-on under the given circumstances was in question, the RB05 might have provided an alternative. Of course all this does not apply to DCS, as the TV seeker will perfectly lock to any game-object. I wonder if it would be possible to replicate the actual real-life targeting algorithms of the Maverick TV-seeker in DCS. At least for player launched missiles. After all the scene viewed by the Maverick seeker is rendered anyway, at least pre-launch. The necessary contrast information is already there. The contrast-locking algorithms cannot be that complicated or performance intensive, considering they have been running on 1970 vintage hardware that fit into a Maverick.

For a a while I have been trying to get a definitive picture of the armament options for the AJ37 Viggen. Please note that this is about the AJ37 before the AJS37 upgrade in the 1990s. Of particular interest are the hardpoints capable to carry the RB75 Maverick missile. There seems to be some conflicting information around. For long I have depended on this graphic, as it seems to be very specific about what the AJS upgrade changes. Note that it lists two RB75 on the fuselage hardpoints for the AJ37 prior to the AJS modification. This graphic is interesting because it shows two RB75 on the wing stations instead. What is discrediting this graphic is that it shows a RB04 on the center-line pylon, which as far as I know could only ferry the RB04 but not launch it. Yet another variant, this time it either two RB75 on the wing or fuselage hardpoints are shown, but apparently not all 4 at the same time. Again we have the RB04 center-line issue. Let's have a look at some photos. Unfortunately photos of RB75 seem to be quite rare and it is often hard to tell whether the subject is a AJ37 or AJS37. That is probably the most famous picture. Considering the quality, I would hazard a guess and say this one is a AJS37. Here we have a nice shot of number 3 and 4 carrying RB75 on the fuselage hardpoints. This still from a youtube clip actually made me question the first graphic above. Note the RB75 on the wing hardpoints. Now the big question is whether this is a AJ or AJS. F7 did fly the AJS for a couple of years as far as I know, but the footage has a vintage touch. Of course you never know what kind of processing was applied to the video. (also note that this seems to be live RB75 and not training rounds, a very rare sight). So, does anyone have any evidence or first hand experience on what hardpoints the AJ37 were RB75 capable?

The U22 jammer-pod also looks too big.

The KB pod seems to be working again, at least if you set INT with a keybind (KONT with a keybind or INT/KONT by clicking the switch doesn't work). Also it seems that the jammers do not work at all.

I have't checked, as I do not have 1.5 installed anymore. Does the new scenery destruction trigger even exist in 1.5?

To reinforce the point, I have just now flown two quick circuits with the F-5E and Viggen at Groom Lake. Small and smooth control inputs, no curvatures applied. The tracks are attached. The F-5E track replays fine. In the Viggen track, the aircraft crashes next to the runway. Edit: There is an interesting difference in track file size for two tracks which basically show the same thing.