DCS: AJS-37 Viggen Discussion

[Goblin]

are a big givaway that it isn't a JA37

 

It's obviously not a JA :)

I think he meant that it's a AJ, not a SH (and not a AJS due to the year of the pic).

[Goblin]

Did they ever paint jaktviggen in green camouflage anyway?

 

Yes.

[renhanxue]

I dont know if this have been answered before but does someone know how much range there is on the BK90 at higher altitudes, i know about the 10 km at 50 ft and at 0,9m but when you are going at 0,9m then 10 km doesnt seem very safe if the enemy have air defenses as 10 km goes pretty damn fast at that speed ;)

Flight manual just says "don't launch above 500m AGL". No idea why.

 

Did they ever paint jaktviggen in green camouflage anyway?

Yep - you were not supposed to be able to tell from the paint if you were looking at a fighter or a strike aircraft.

[mattebubben]

Did they ever paint jaktviggen in green camouflage anyway?

 

Yes some of the Wings had some of there JA 37s painted in the green splinter scheme and some in the Grey Air superiority/fighter scheme.

 

This was done to make it harder for the enemy to ID the aircraft variant since all other Viggen variants were painted in the green splinter as standard

so an aircraft with the green camo could be of any type be it AJ 37,SH 37 SF 37 Sk 37 or JA 37

they could not use the paintscheme to ID them other then that a Grey Viggen had to be a Fighter Viggen but rather they had to try to visually ID the type

by looking at the airframe what ever ordnance they had as well as the markings but that is not always the easiest things to do in combat or mock combat scenarios.

 

 

 

Here is an example of this with 2 JA 37s from the F4 wing.

One painted in the Green Splinter camo and the other in the Gray air superiority paintscheme.

 

Edit: Dang Ren just beat me to it xD.

Edited November 23, 2016 by mattebubben

[mattebubben]

Flight manual just says "don't launch above 500m AGL". No idea why.

 

 

Yep - you were not supposed to be able to tell from the paint if you were looking at a fighter or a strike aircraft.

 

On the concern of the Bk 90 i know ive read that the Swedish variant

(the BK 90) had a Radar Altimeter that was weaker and only made for low level flying so at higher altitudes it could not read what altitude it was traveling at and as such the navigation system might not work properly.

 

Where as the International version of the BK 90 / DWS 24 as used by Greece called AFDS

(Autonomous Flight Dispenser System)

has a more powerful Radar Altimeter designed to allow higher altitude deployments.

 

A similar Altimeter could probably have been used by the BK 90 as well but i assume since the Swedish Strike Doctrine favored low altitude / high speed approaches they did not see the need for a more expensive / more powerful altimeter system as higher altitude drops were not a part of the doctrine.

 

(As the weapon was developed for the Swedish air force the low level deployment and weaker altimeter was standard but when Greece ordered it they wanted a more powerful system to allow higher altitude deployment).

 

The biggest problem i see with the BK 90 and the low altitude employment is that some of the terrain in the Caucasus map could be problematic since i dont know

how well it would deal with hilly and mountainous terrain (And i think Hilly Terrain might be why Greece wanted a variant able to be dropped from higher altitudes)

since it would try to stay at a chosen altitude / route and as such trying to fly up a hill/slope would cause it to bleed speed to where it would be less likely to reach a target

(unless dropped from closer ranges).

Edited November 23, 2016 by mattebubben

[Sim Flyer]

Flight manual just says "don't launch above 500m AGL". No idea why.

 

It doesnt mention the range at 500 ml AGL?, as far as i can calculate that is about 1600 feet so that should give some decent extra range

[Snail]

Low level attacks, however much fun they are in a sim, are quite deadly for the attacker in modern manpad territory. I don’t think any airforce is relying on it anymore.

[QuiGon]

Low level attacks, however much fun they are in a sim, are quite deadly for the attacker in modern manpad territory. I don’t think any airforce is relying on it anymore.

 

Indeed, they pretty much all shifted to high altitude PGM attacks in the 90s.

[mattebubben]

It doesnt mention the range at 500 ml AGL?, as far as i can calculate that is about 1600 feet so that should give some decent extra range

 

Dont know how much though since as i think its programmed to fly at a certain altitude so if dropped at 500m it would simply descend to that altitude (probably some where around 50m) and then fly at that altitude so while it would perhaps gain some speed it would not be a huge change in range.

 

I Could be wrong but thats my understanding of how it works

(and also why it should not be dropped higher as at higher altitudes the Radar Altimeter would get no reading so it might get confused as to how to steer)

 

The Standard BK 90 is designed to glide at low altitudes so that is what it would try to do when dropped so that is when it is happiest.

 

One thing to note though is that the BK 90 can be dropped off bore so you dont have to fly directly at the target so if you dont want to risk overflying the target you can simply drop the bombs while flying at an angle and BK 90 will turn towards the target while you will stay out of greater risk.

 

The Stated numbers for 50m and 0.9 mach were 10km straight ahead of 5km 90 Degrees for either side so when launched against a target that is just 20-45 degrees from the flight heading the range should still be decent while at the same time the risk for the aircraft would be lower since you would not pass as deep into the range of the enemy defenses.

 

But sadly for the Standard BK 90 higher altitude drops are not a part of its stated capabilities but we will have to wait and see what kind of things you can try to do with it that are against regulations.

[NeilWillis]

In the above picture of the JA37, yes. Not in the picture of the F7 aircraft, you can compare them.

 

I'm glad it wasn't me going mad!

[mattebubben]

But then again against manpads it kinda depends on how low and fast you are flying as well as the terrain.

 

If you are flying at 20-50m at Mach 0.9 and the terrain is not perfectly flat than a manpad operator would have a hard time seeing and launching at the target in time.

 

Over water or perfectly flat terrain or if the aircraft is flying in the 200-1000m range then yes its alot more dangerous.

 

But also the shift to high altitude flying instead of low altitude was not really just because of manpads it was very much due to the new type of warfare that was the new focus.

 

The low Altitude tactics where based on a full scale war between super powers where Fighters and advanced long range sams were plentyfull and where a manpad threat would be secondary and less dangerous then the swarms of Sams and advanced medium / long range sams in the area.

 

But after the cold war most of the combat has been against less advanced opponents where one side has complete air superiority and the enemy does not have the latest and best Sam systems but instead rely mostly on cheap weapons like unguided AAA weapons and hand Held manpads.

 

In that kind of scenario that is standard then flying high makes sense as there is no high altitude threat.

 

But if we again got into a scenario where that enemy had as many fighters as you had (so neither side has air superiority)

and Advanced medium - long range sams cluttered the area

im confident tactics would change again.

 

Since for strikers flying high only makes sense when there are no enemy fighters around.

 

Tactics are always changing depending on the foe and and what kind of threats are greatest and most numerous.

Edited November 23, 2016 by mattebubben

[Mongolf]

Low level attacks, however much fun they are in a sim, are quite deadly for the attacker in modern manpad territory. I don’t think any airforce is relying on it anymore.

 

Well, here does the sim an reality Clash in another way, by the time the person has liften up the igla and prepped for launch a Viggen at high speed run will probably have gone away from direct line of sight. In reality manpads are more lethal against medium level AC and even more lethal against helicopters.

 

Reality gives so much more factors, for example, near supersonic or supersonic flights will pass before u hear them, and even then echoes and the shear shock will give some initial problems understanding direction. Also vegetation is in most Swedish terrains a obstacle for line of sight, terrain topograph likevise. Tests with rbs-70 showed that low level attack was a reasonable risk assessment.

 

If u look at Syria, where manpads are abundant, its mostly helicopters that is shot down, for understandable reasons. And that's in a desert, where vegetation and weather is no problem.

This will be hard to duplicate in DCS, most likely will manpads give a non realistic hit percentage in game.

[Darkman]

Sinking the covetry https://youtu.be/DyH0zjmZGUY

[Oceandar]

How about Viggen chance against M2K or MiG-29A/S in A2A duel ?

[Agremont]

How about Viggen chance against M2K or MiG-29A/S in A2A duel ?

 

The AJS-37 Viggen is a striker. It should avoid going into air to air combat with those planes.

[Sweep]

The AJS-37 Viggen is a striker. It should avoid going into air to air combat with those planes.

 

So should A-10s, but nothing stops them from training DACT occasionally... :)

[dartuil]

The day is coming!! :)

[mattebubben]

How about Viggen chance against M2K or MiG-29A/S in A2A duel ?

Its pretty much as fast as either of those and has good acceleration

but has a worse Thrust/weight ratio.

 

Its sustained turn rate is worse then either though its instantaneous turn rate is not horrible.

 

It has a good roll rate and is pretty maneuverable

(for a 1960s-1970s jet anway)

but in an outright dogfight it will have the disadvantage.

 

It can carry Aim-9s (RB 24J = AIM-9P/J and RB74 = Aim-9L)

and can carry a total of 6 if you exclude air-ground weapons or 2 if you only use the dedicated Air-Air pylons.

 

If forced into and air-air engagement you should use the speed and roll rate together with terrain to either slip away or get a shot off at an unsuspecting foe.

 

But a head-head dogfight should be avoided whenever possible as that is not the role of the AJ/AJS 37 (but rather the Fighter variant the JA 37)

the Radar of the AJ/AJS 37 is not made for Air-Air combat so its not very effective in that role but it has some basic search modes as well as a ranging mode to give range information missile launch envelopes.

 

And you should be far less likely to be caught by an enemy to start with in an AJS 37 as you are mach 1+ at low altitude and mach 2+ at altitude so you can always run from a hostile

(in a way the A-10 has no way of doing).

Edited November 26, 2016 by mattebubben

[asla36]

So you should be able to use it in a ground masking interceptor role with GCI? Also does the ground radar show up on RWR? Looking forward to the streams:D

[mattebubben]

Historically it had a secondary air-air role but that would mainly be

intercepting Helicopters or transports or other unarmed aircraft

if there were no Fighters (JA37s or J35s) available for the task,

and they would rely on GCI on that

so it should be able to be used like that in DCS and it would be no worse then the Mig-21 or F-5E in that role

(It would have better missiles then either but would have the same problem as the F-5E with having no IFF interrogation system).

 

As far as i know the radar should show up on RWR if its radar waves hits an aircraft,

but its another question if it would be recognizable or just show up as unkown.

[asla36]

This is a completely different question, but does anyone know if the Swedish map will have the Baltic coastline and airbases?

[asla36]

And thanks:D

[addde]

This is a completely different question, but does anyone know if the Swedish map will have the Baltic coastline and airbases?

 

There has been basically no info about what map to expect, the speculation is mostly Swedish eastcost / Gotland / part of Baltics. Hopefully we will see on monday!

[asla36]

I hope that I will be able to fly from my home country in the Baltic, Estonia:D

[Pizzasalladland]

Regarding terrain area, it would make the most sense in having it in the baltic region, preferably with coastline in both the Swedish east coast, as well as parts of the Estonian/Latvian/Kaliningrad coastline.

I personally hope that the swedish coastline from Stockholm archipelago in the north to lets say Västervik/Oskarshamn in the south is included on the swedish side. Mostly because of the interesting terrain with the far stretching (in width and depth) archipelago.

It would be a shame if the map consists of only Gotland when it comes to land areas as it adds no real news to the terrains that already exists (i.e. Caucasus lowlands), just a big flat island with one airbase.

 

I know i have read that the terrain should be seen as a smaller project compared to the other terrains in the game or under developement, so unfortunately i think its to hope for too much that we will be able to operate from the real AJ/AJS37 bases which were located further in land.

 

I would be more than happy though, to get to start my AJS37 along with AI JA37s from F13 Bråvalla (as made famous by the latest Viggen-video recently posted) in easthern direction, and navigate my way out of the St Anna archipelago between the small islands and skerrys at low alt and high speed, giving wind in the sails for the small sailboats, that just have recovered from the wake of the navys missile boats and destroyers. Releasing the heavy payload in the outher coast line and return to some road base south to rearm and refuel. Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat...