drPhibes Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 Hmm, I mean the AJ37 as one of its main purposes had the "sink an possible invasion fleet" task. You shouldn't mention sinking ships around Swedes. It reminds them of that time they made a huge sail ship that tipped over because of a little wind.
Skjold Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 You shouldn't mention sinking ships around Swedes. It reminds them of that time they made a huge sail ship that tipped over because of a little wind. Or maybe you should mention it around us because of for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Svensksund :thumbup: I really can't wait for the Viggen, i have visited this thread daily for over a year now. A lot of interesting people and discussions :thumbup:
Pocket Sized Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 (edited) Indeed. I mean, if the aircraft has been confirned, even though no official DCS material has been show, it still should have it's own subforum for the sake of clarity. 3000th post in the Viggen thread! Edited September 29, 2016 by Pocket Sized DCS modules are built up to a spec, not down to a schedule. In order to utilize a system to your advantage, you must know how it works.
MikeMikeJuliet Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 3000th post in the bigger thread! Did I win something, then? :D DCS Finland | SF squadron
renhanxue Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 (edited) words Uh. Did I offend you in some way? Why so aggressive? The man on the street doesn't know what a RWR is. The fact that the Viggen even had one was classified, down to the name of the device ("apparat 27") not having anything to do with what it did. Of course the RWR in and of itself doesn't have any political consequences. What the man on the street might care about is opening Expressen and seeing black headlines about the air force's new aircraft getting equipment straight outta Vietnam. The engine was decided on very early in the project, it was a civilian engine and it was license-built in Sweden and was claimed to be Volvo Flygmotor's in many contexts. The autopilot was developed in cooperation between Saab and Honeywell, it wasn't purchased outright. I dare you to find a single component in the AJ 37 that is actually American - I can't think of one. As for the American missiles, the AIM-9B was purchased in 1960, the Falcon and RBS 67 around the same time (early 60's). After that, the Swedish military did not get to purchase any more American missiles until 1977 - that's when both the Maverick and the AIM-9P were purchased. The entire decade ~1965-1975 was a complete wasteland as far as importing American weapon systems was concerned - it was politically sensitive and relations were bad. Edited September 29, 2016 by renhanxue 4
Pocket Sized Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 Did I win something, then? :D Yes! You made me realize autocorrect hates non-english words :lol: DCS modules are built up to a spec, not down to a schedule. In order to utilize a system to your advantage, you must know how it works.
scaflight Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 Uh. Did I offend you in some way? Why so aggressive? The man on the street doesn't know what a RWR is. The fact that the Viggen even had one was classified, down to the name of the device ("apparat 27") not having anything to do with what it did. Of course the RWR in and of itself doesn't have any political consequences. What the man on the street might care about is opening Expressen and seeing black headlines about the air force's new aircraft getting equipment straight outta Vietnam. The engine was decided on very early in the project, it was a civilian engine and it was license-built in Sweden and was claimed to be Volvo Flygmotor's in many contexts. The autopilot was developed in cooperation between Saab and Honeywell, it wasn't purchased outright. I dare you to find a single component in the AJ 37 that is actually American - I can't think of one. As for the American missiles, the AIM-9B was purchased in 1960, the Falcon and RBS 67 around the same time (early 60's). After that, the Swedish military did not get to purchase any more American missiles until 1977 - that's when both the Maverick and the AIM-9P were purchased. The entire decade ~1965-1975 was a complete wasteland as far as importing American weapon systems was concerned - it was politically sensitive and relations were bad. I'm having a technical problem 1
renhanxue Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 Well, us ban on export for Viggen to potential customers was sort of due to non existing US technology in the aircraft I guess? Plz do not try to analyze the politic arena in regards to Viggen RWR, they have nothing in common. Buying RWR from US wouldn't have been a political problem, despite the fact that US had none to offer by that time. But we had the expertise to develop one, and there was none available to buy. The ban was because of the engine (formally under export license but hardly top of the line around 1970), and I wonder what might have caused the Americans to do that particular bit of political arm-twisting... might it have been that the Swedish-American diplomatic relations were rather bad at the time? Or maybe it's just that the US wanted to protect its own export interests. I disagree with your claim that it wouldn't have been a political problem to buy an RWR, but it's rather hard to prove a hypothetical argument. I'm just saying, in the years around 1970 it was demonstrably difficult for the Swedish military to purchase American military equipment in general. It's just a pity that all the life lost, all the effort put into our own RWR has historically been twisted into a question on Olof Palme and he's relations to US. I have to point this error out for what it is. Either ignorance or history revision to suit right wing ideas in retrospect. Remember those that gave their life's for our neutrality and in the line of duty to gather radar information on Soviet systems. I really don't understand why you're making this to be a discussion about SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!! or something, nor your accusation of historical revisionism. If it makes you feel any better I can say that I mostly agree with Palme's views of the US in Vietnam, but this is hardly the place to discuss that.
renhanxue Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 Like I said in my original post, under-the-table horse trading went on anyway, regardless of what Palme said officially and what the general public believed. I have read those studies you're talking about. Geopolitical support in case of crisis and the exchange of intelligence is not the same thing as trade agreements and purchasing weapon systems - the latter is much more visible to the public and therefore more politically sensitive. I'm really not sure what you're even arguing about at this point.
renhanxue Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 That's not what I said. I said it would have been politically sensitive to buy a RWR (or any American weapons at all) around 1970. Since we didn't do it, it's very hard to say if it could have been done or not (both "would the Americans have been willing to sell" and "would FMV have been willing to buy" are open questions). At no point have I said or even implied anything about the availability of a RWR, FRA's SIGINT flights over the Baltic (with a great deal American equipment, yes), or that Olof Palme was involved personally. I'm still not sure exactly what you think I should admit to being wrong about, nor why you think I don't have enough respect for the air force's lost lives. In fact, I still don't understand what that last part has to do withthe discussion at all.
mattebubben Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 (edited) Mongolf what are you on about?... And why are you after Renhanuxe... He never said that Sweden should have used a US RWR or that we needed a US RWR... Another User asked why Sweden did not purchase something like the AN/ALR-46 from the US instead of developing our own RWR (that he thought was inferior probably just by comparing the displays). Me and others answered and explained it to him and after the explanation Renhanuxe added that such a deal in the early 70s could also have been problematic due to politics. He never once claimed that We needed a US RWR system or that we could not develop our own... He simply stated that at the time period where the AN/ALR-46 first entered service (early 1970s) Swedish-US relations were not at its best. So i have no idea why you are continuing saying that he does not care about the lives of the Swedish airmen that died during the cold war etc... Since that was never a part of the conversation... Edited September 29, 2016 by mattebubben
Skjold Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 Mongolf, what the hell are you even on about? You are rambling about stuff that has nothing to do with the subject matter. It seems like you read into peoples opinions way too much and also make a long list of assumptions on what people think based on.. what? You are basicly having a conversation with yourself... To me it seems like you complain about simplification of history yet you insist on your interpretation of said history being the only correct one. And for gods sake nobody is blaming Olof Palme. 1
JaNk0 Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 I think this discussion have blown out of proportions. Let's just leave at that for the sake of the thread. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Skjold Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 U do know Swedish ELINT missions was critical for our development of our RWR in Viggen? Without these missions we wouldn't had the information to even start construct the RWR? Or has this also been lost in history? I agree. Nobody has ever disagreed with you on that point. As i said, you are discussing with yourself. Yeah Jankko, probably a good time to call it.
renhanxue Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 It's not like there even is any definitive answer to the question to the question "why not buy a foreign RWR". You can almost never narrow down any historical event down to having one single well-defined cause. People almost never make completely rational decisions, after all. The real answer is more likely to be of the type "all of the above, to various extents". That I brought up political sensitivity in the first place was not because I thought it was a better reason than what had already been said, just an additional possible reason that might have influenced the decision.
Veritech Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 This thread has become huge! I was trying to find that article in here of the RAF pilot that got a ride on a two seater Viggen, does anybody has that link handy? Cheers! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "Alis Aquilae Aut Pax Aut Bellum" Veritech's DCS YouTube Channel
renhanxue Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 This thread has become huge! I was trying to find that article in here of the RAF pilot that got a ride on a two seater Viggen, does anybody has that link handy? Cheers! http://www.collectair.co.uk/pdf/interview-hr.pdf
mattebubben Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 The only reason why this thread still works even though it has so many pages making digging for info hard is the fact that everybody is so helpful. I dont think i have ever seen somebody telling someone to find it yourself on this thread. If someone asks a question others will always try to answer them and that to me is what makes for a good forum/thread.
MikeMikeJuliet Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 That probably makes this "the thread". :D Before anyone continues the RWR political side of things, let me remind you that discussing political issues on this forum is discouraged heavily. And personal accusations arent looked at positively either. Let's be civil and adult about this. ... No better day than a friday. DCS Finland | SF squadron
Sim Flyer Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 http://www.collectair.co.uk/pdf/interview-hr.pdf This is really some interesting reading :D
chev255 Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 The only reason why this thread still works even though it has so many pages making digging for info hard is the fact that everybody is so helpful. I dont think i have ever seen somebody telling someone to find it yourself on this thread. If someone asks a question others will always try to answer them and that to me is what makes for a good forum/thread. Big kudos to yourself, renhanxue and the other Swedes for all that you have brought to the community through this thread, the declassified manuals etc. :thumbup: I don't think any other upcoming module has anywhere near as much information on the forum as the Viggen. This makes me reallly want to fly it :)
mattebubben Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 And thats one of the reasons why i do it (and im sure one of the reasons that other swedes to it as well). Majority of Swedes are very proud of the Viggen and its loved by pretty much all Swedes that are interested in fighter jets etc. Where as outside of Sweden its not as well known so it would not have the same interest internationally as a F/A-18C or F-14A/B and as such i love to try to get people interested in the Viggen by talking about it and spreading info about it. While at the same time trying to educate people on the differences on the different Viggen variants and what to expect from the AJS 37 (so people dont expect a fighter Viggen with BVR missiles from the 1980s with advanced systems and get disappointed when what they are getting is the 1970s Attack variant with some minor 1990s changes). We Swedes love the Viggen so we want you guys to as well ^^. And this is also a perfect time for the Viggen since it will bring new features and a new breath of fresh air to the game as there is nothing like the AJS 37 Viggen in DCS (Mach 2 capable Anti-Ship/Attack aircraft with funky 1970s tech and a old school air-ground radar). 1
microvax Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) :D in my squadron I am already known for talking about the Viggen all the time literally. :D Funny part ist, that we have a real swede also as a member but I am known for talking more about it then him. ;DD We are already doing training in low level high speed a2g for our future Viggen wing. :)) Anything higher then 60ft is to high. No excuses ! :D Powerlines are to be underflown on final approach to target. :D Kinda curious how much harder it will be to do that without the FBW. Although in general, I expect to be able to achieve more with the Viggen due to its nature of beeing intended for A2G, then with the Mirage. Also the Viggen can carry roughly 20% more fuel while consuming pretty much the same on 100%RPM and the same on stage 2 AB, only on stage 3AB it really eats more fuel then the Mirage, but also has roughly 20kn more thrust, so I guess thats usefuell. :D Cant wait to pwne people with the RB05 btw. :D Edited September 30, 2016 by microvax [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] *unexpected flight behaviour* Oh shiii*** ! What ? Why ? What is happening ?
mattebubben Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 Yea i hope it does not take long before someone manages to kill a F-15 or Su-27 on a MP server with a RB05 and takes a screenshot of it ^^. That will be even worse then getting killed by a AGM-65 ^^. And im very happy at all the non Swedes that are Excited about the Viggen =).
Recommended Posts