DCS: AJS-37 Viggen Discussion

[amb]

I was trying to get hold of the flight manual and found the embedded PDF's at page 40-something, but the links weren't working anymore. So could someone who has a copy of it upload it somewhere and post a link to it? Would be much appreciated!

[Farlander]

Leatherneck is love, Leatherneck is life :)

 

Can't wait to fly the MiG and shoot some virtual svenskjævlar ;)

 

Oh, nvm.. I'll probably be too hyped over a scandinavian a/c to fly the MiG...

[mattebubben]

Leatherneck is love, Leatherneck is life :)

 

Can't wait to fly the MiG and shoot some virtual svenskjævlar ;)

 

Oh, nvm.. I'll probably be too hyped over a scandinavian a/c to fly the MiG...

 

And i hope the map that will come with the viggen will allow us to bomb some danes ^^

[BlackLion213]

F-5E is closer to the Mig-21 in size maneuverability overall preformance aswell as philosophy.

 

They are both small low cost combat aircraft where the tech is not the most important point and they are both dogfighters with alot of priority to close range / gun combat.

 

While the F-4 is a large lumbering aircraft where the tech was deemed to be enough to win any battle.

 

It is more expensive and relies more on weapons in combat then it does agillity.

 

It was not a dogfighter in the same way and only got the gun because i twas realised it was needed but its no gun fighter.

 

Comparing the F-4E and a mig-21 is like comparing a F-14 with a Mig-23.

 

As sure they fought eachother and are of comparable timeframes but they are very much different aircraft with different priorities.

 

I really like this post MatteBubben. :) Which begs the question: isn't the AJS-37 Viggen also an excellent opponent for the MiG-21?

 

I think the "proper opponent" is really about 2 aircraft where neither has a huge advantage over the other (like MiG-21Bis vs AMRAAM equipped F-15C - a bridge too far).

 

Plus, history has created some interesting opponents. The F-14A has fired nearly as many shots at the F-4E as the MiG-23 in US service...:huh: I speak of the incident in 1987 when VF-21 engaged a pair of IRIAF F-4E Phantoms in the Strait of Hormuz. Each Tomcat fired a sparrow and the IRIAF promptly turned and ran, the Tomcat's were ordered off before missile impact and intentionally broke their lock (it is presumed that the missiles missed).

 

With out upcoming Strait of Hormuz theater, Tomcats and Hornets (and Mirages, F-15s, A-10s, anything US, NATO, or allied - which could also be Russian) may spend more time fighting F-4Es, F-5Es, and F-14As than anything from Sukhoi or Mikoyan.

 

I say good opponents are anything that end up in front of you and happen to be hostile - hopefully its something that doesn't totally outclass you. :)

 

-Nick

Edited February 21, 2016 by BlackLion213

[amb]

Wouldn't the J 35 Draken be quite a good opponent for the MiG-21...? Just saying... :music_whistling: :smilewink:

[Goblin]

So it is a digitial joystick (with 4 switches) then? Makes sense since that would allow a much simpler data transmission protocol.

 

I can't remember. It was back in 1993 :)

but the idea was to give a short input, not to hold the stick in one direction for long, to avoid over corrections which would waste the limited controllability.

[Goblin]

Checked with a guy who knows a lot about e subject...

The Rb05 controller was analogue. Actually a force transducer stick, with a little play.

He reminded me of something I had forgotten. It could only be controlled upwards and to the left. The missile itself was trimmed to fly downwards and to the right.

[amb]

Checked with a guy who knows a lot about e subject...

The Rb05 controller was analogue. Actually a force transducer stick, with a little play.

He reminded me of something I had forgotten. It could only be controlled upwards and to the left. The missile itself was trimmed to fly downwards and to the right.

 

Wow, really? I'm starting to seriously wonder how they ever managed to hit anything with that thing - and why they even bothered, why not just use rockets instead. Will be really interesting to try it in DCS...

[mattebubben]

I really like this post MatteBubben. :) Which begs the question: isn't the AJS-37 Viggen also an excellent opponent for the MiG-21?

 

I think the "proper opponent" is really about 2 aircraft where neither has a huge advantage over the other (like MiG-21Bis vs AMRAAM equipped F-15C - a bridge too far).

 

Plus, history has created some interesting opponents. The F-14A has fired nearly as many shots at the F-4E as the MiG-23...:huh: I speak of the incident in 1987 when VF-21 engaged a pair of IRIAF F-4E Phantoms in the Strait of Hormuz. Each Tomcat fired a sparrow and the IRIAF promptly turned and ran, the Tomcat's were ordered off before missile impact and intentionally broke their lock (it is presumed that the missiles missed).

 

With out upcoming Strait of Hormuz theater, Tomcats and Hornets (and Mirages, F-15s, A-10s, anything US, NATO, or allied - which could also be Russian) may spend more time fighting F-4Es, F-5Es, and F-14As than anything from Sukhoi or Mikoyan.

 

I say good opponents are anything that end up in front of you and happen to be hostile - hopefully its something that doesn't totally outclass you. :)

 

-Nick

 

If we just look at preformance etc then yes the AJS 37 will be very much competitive with the Mig-21.

 

And the AJS 37 is likley to have a number of advantages depending on the situation (especially if the AJS 37 is flying with full missile loadout).

 

But while the AJ/AJS 37 can/would be ok against older fighters like the mig-21 and other aircraft of the same timeframe one must remember that its not a fighter primarily.

 

So while you can do a good job at defending yourself and fighting against older opponents remember that its a strike/attack aircraft and that should be its primary duty in dcs.

 

=P I dont want to start hearing ppl complaining once its released that the viggen sucks etc because its not a "good" fighter etc as the fighter role is not the primary task of the AJ/AJS 37.

 

And especially since by the time of the AJS 37 upgrade in the mid 90s it would have had alot of trouble against most of the fighters it would have come up against.

 

Against a Mig-21 or F-5E or similar 60s/early 70s aircraft it can to ok as a fighter.

 

But its fighter type missions would primarily have been focusing on things like Bombers, strike aircraft and transports if the fighters where needed for other duties (like taking out the enemy fighters)

 

Probably the main air-air task of the AJ 37 would have been Anti helicopter duty wich is something it would likely have done with gunpods and maby 2 air-air missiles.

 

Personally im mostly gonna use it as a strike/anti ship aircraft but if any fighter gets in my sights i will ofc take advantage of the situation (since on the AJS-37 you should pretty much always carry 2 Aim9s since thats the only thing the outer wing pylon can carry)

 

And also a note on ur comment about the F-14 almost firing as many shots at the F-4E as against the mig-23.

 

Well thats true if you are just talking about F-14s in US service.

 

Since the Iranian F-14s Shot down a large number of mig-23s during the Iran-Iraq war (25-35 confirmed)

 

So in total the F-14 has shot down/Fired at alot more Mig-23s the F-4s ^^.

[mattebubben]

Wow, really? I'm starting to seriously wonder how they ever managed to hit anything with that thing - and why they even bothered, why not just use rockets instead. Will be really interesting to try it in DCS...

 

Well from the pilot reports ive heard they found it to be very accurate.

 

And also you need to remember the RB 05 is not really a anti tank weapon (even if it can be used as one to good effect if you hit)

 

It was mostly supposed to be used against structured etc.

 

One mission ive heard it was supposed to be used for was bridge busting.

 

Sweden is full of rivers and lakes.

 

And as such knocking out bridges would be an effective way of slowing down an enemy.

 

And while it was the Infantry engineers task to blow important bridges (if forced to retreat) the AJ 37 would have been used to knock a bridge out if the engineers had been unable to destroy it in time.

 

But More importantly then the destroying the old bridges it would have been used to stop the russians from building new bridges once the original bridges had been blown.

 

And that was a duty that the RB 05 and its 160kg warhead could have done a decent job off.

 

And since a Bridge is a large and immobile object it would have been easy to hit.

 

And in theory the RB 05 had a decent range (up to 9km but seeing as the pilot had to keep visual with the target and missile that makes it more limited =P)

 

But the pilots i talked to called it a silver bullet as it rarely missed (if the pilot knew what he was doing)

 

It was a lot less liked by the ground crew though ^^ as the propellant was toxic they did not like to handle the stuff ^^.

[BlackLion213]

And also a note on ur comment about the F-14 almost firing as many shots at the F-4E as against the mig-23.

 

Well thats true if you are just talking about F-14s in US service.

 

Since the Iranian F-14s Shot down a large number of mig-23s during the Iran-Iraq war (25-35 confirmed)

 

So in total the F-14 has shot down/Fired at alot more Mig-23s the F-4s ^^.

 

Yes, I was referring to USN service. :) And trying to post a reminder that combat aircraft fight things beyond their expected, classic enemy.

 

You don't have to worry about me forgetting the Tomcat's Iranian service - my father is Persian. ;)

 

I want to believe the reports of the F-14A's IRIAF service record, I wish they could better sort out the real figure. I think Tom Cooper's estimate of nearly 150 is a bit overzealous, but I also believe that it shot down a lot of IrAF fighters. The CIA was willing to confirm Jalil Zandi's record of 11 kills, quite impressive by modern air combat standards.

 

-Nick

[Hummingbird]

F-5E is closer to the Mig-21 in size maneuverability overall preformance aswell as philosophy.

 

They are both small low cost combat aircraft where the tech is not the most important point and they are both dogfighters with alot of priority to close range / gun combat.

 

While the F-4 is a large lumbering aircraft where the tech was deemed to be enough to win any battle.

 

It is more expensive and relies more on weapons in combat then it does agillity.

 

It was not a dogfighter in the same way and only got the gun because i twas realised it was needed but its no gun fighter.

 

Comparing the F-4E and a mig-21 is like comparing a F-14 with a Mig-23.

 

As sure they fought eachother and are of comparable timeframes but they are very much different aircraft with different priorities.

 

In that regard the F-5E and Mig-21 are closer.

 

the F-8 is also more comparable with the mig-21 then the F-4 is.

 

When i talk about comparing them its not just Flight preformance on paper etc.

 

Its how they were designed and what they were designed to do.

 

And thats why the F-5 is more comparable with the mig-21 then the F-4 is.

 

the F-4 and Mig-21 are still very much adversaries and they are evenly matched depending on the tactics used.

 

But as aircraft they are not as comparable just like a F-15 and Su-27 are more comparable aircraft then a F-16 and Su-27 even though they can have comparable performances in combat terms.

 

But lets return to the Viggen =P.

 

There are F-4 phantom threads and F-5E threads aswell as mig-21 threads where this kind of discussion is more suited =P.

 

Again the F-5E & MiG-21 are only really close in size if you ask me (and perhaps cost, but most Russian jets are rather cheap by western stds.), other than that they are quite different.

 

1. The F-5E is noticably more maneuverable than the MiG-21Bis, it was comparable to the much lighter MiG-21 F-13 but the Bis features a wing loading that is +75% higher than the F-13 tested by the US in the HaveDoughnut project, i.e. they are not the same aircraft.

 

By comparison the F-4E features roughly the same maneuverability as the Bis, the F-4E boasting a slightly higher turn rate.

 

2. The MiG-21Bis climbs & accelerates appreciably faster than the F-5E at all altitudes

By comparison the F-4E climbs and accelerates nearly as well as the Bis.

 

3. The MiG-21Bis is faster than the F-5E at all altitudes, significantly so at high altitudes

 

By comparison the F-4E is actually slightly faster.

 

However I do agree with you that the F-8E is an even closer match, and I'd love to see that one added as well, however to be fair the Phantom saw a lot more service, esp. the F-4E which still flies today.

 

EDIT: As for the Viggen vs the MiG-21, well now we're indeed talking two different aircraft ^^ The Viggen is the superior aircraft in most respects whilst being a capable ground attack aircraft on top.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Hummingbird

[El Hadji]

Wouldn't the J 35 Draken be quite a good opponent for the MiG-21...? Just saying... :music_whistling: :smilewink:

 

I like the way you think! :thumbup:

 

[mattebubben]

Again the F-5E & MiG-21 are only really close in size if you ask me (and perhaps cost, but most Russian jets are rather cheap by western stds.), other than that they are quite different.

 

1. The F-5E is noticably more maneuverable than the MiG-21Bis, it was comparable to the much lighter MiG-21 F-13 but the Bis features a wing loading that is +75% higher than the F-13 tested by the US in the HaveDoughnut project, i.e. they are not the same aircraft.

 

By comparison the F-4E features roughly the same maneuverability as the Bis, the F-4E boasting a slightly higher turn rate.

 

2. The MiG-21Bis climbs & accelerates appreciably faster than the F-5E at all altitudes

By comparison the F-4E climbs and accelerates nearly as well as the Bis.

 

3. The MiG-21Bis is faster than the F-5E at all altitudes, significantly so at high altitudes

 

By comparison the F-4E is actually slightly faster.

 

However I do agree with you that the F-8E is an even closer match, and I'd love to see that one added as well, however to be fair the Phantom saw a lot more service, esp. the F-4E which still flies today.

 

Im not not disputing the F-4E had comparable performances to the mig-21 in many areas.

 

Im just saying the F-5E is a more comparable aircraft...

 

While the F-4E and Mig-21 where completely different aircraft that fought very differently the F-5E and the Mig-21 where more comparable in size and the roles they where designed for etc.

 

Both the F-5E and Mig-21 where small light cost effective single seat fighters optimised for wvr combat.

 

The F-4E was a large expensive heavy two seat fighter whos design prioritised tech like a large radar and bvr missiles over agillity and close in combat.

 

As such the F-5E and Mig-21 are more comparable since they are comparable aircraft for a comparable role.

 

While the F-4E is a very different aircraft.

 

Sure the F-4E can and will do the same missions / duties but it would do the differently and has a different focus.

 

I have never disputed that the F-4E has preformance matching the mig-21 in many areas.

 

Im just saying that the F-5E design is more comparable to the mig-21 then the F-4E is.

 

A even closer aircraft would probably be the F-104 since its even closer to the mig-21 then the F-5 is in many areas

(like speed and being single engined).

[mattebubben]

I like the way you think! :thumbup:

 

 

awww :wub:

 

Lilldraken xD

 

Isnt it cute xD

 

And yea the J35 draken could bee a interesting aircraft for dcs (in the future but id say we should probably have 1 or 2 non swedish aircraft before that so ppl dont get mad xD)

 

And one thing with the draken is that it was actually exported to a few nations.

 

Those Being Finland Denmark and Austria.

 

so a J35 there would be some options for nations other then just sweden.

 

No matter if they made a F or J variant i think Finnish and Austrian skins would be a given.

 

The Draken variants made for denmark where very different so a danish skin would be less realistic (atleast if they made a swedish Draken)

 

The Danish Draken was unique amongst the J35 variants as it focused on air-ground instead of air-air duties and did not even have a radar.

 

In the mid 60s Denmark was looking for a new aircraft to replace the RF-84 (in the reconnaissance role) in one squadron and the F-100 (in the Air-groud role) in another squadron.

 

They looked at a number of aircraft including the A-4,F-104,F-5 mirage 5 aswell as the J35 Draken.

 

Initially the J35 was close to the bottom of the list with the F-5 and Mirage 5 being the two primary choices.

 

The reasons they did not like the J 35 was due to poor air-ground payload aswell as limited range and inabillity to carry heavy weapons (as the Draken in swedish service only carried Air-Air missiles and rockets)

 

So saab presented a new variant for denmark.

 

It was very much a new design with 40% more internal fuel and large structural changes a redesigned wing aswell as more hardpoints aswell as other changes optimising it for the air-ground role.

 

The New variant immediately ended up in the top 3 (together with the Mirage 5 and F-5)

 

The Draken ended up being selected for a number of reasons

(including the fact that it was made so close to denmark making delivery training and maintenance so much easier since the airplanes could easily fly from the factory to the airbase in denmark in a single flight)

 

So they ended up getting 20 recce and 20 strike aircraft(aswell as some trainers and second hand Swedish aircraft as spares)

 

The Recce variant was designated RF-35 and the Strike variant was designated F-35 ^^

 

They ended up being well liked by the danes and had several upgrades over time.

 

Including a laser targeting system and a HUD (making it the only Draken variant with a HUD)

 

in the 70s there were plans to acquire more drakens for the fighter role (either with a more modern radar / hud etc or cheaper refurbished Drakens from sweden)

 

but nothing came of it due to budget cuts.

 

They were Retired in 1993 even though they had been recently upgraded and still had many years on them.

 

But like many other nations denmark drastically reduced their airforce / army after the end of the cold war and the Drakens ended up being one of the victims.

 

But the Story of the danish draken does not end there as when it left service in 1993 6 aircraft where sold to the National Test Pilot School in the US where some of them still fly (though they are soon to be retired and apparently they are looking for somone to buy them as they still have plenty of flight hours before they are done)

 

The Danish F-35 draken prior to the upgrades in the 80s looked very similar to the Swedish drakens (other then some modifications to the wing and more hardpoints)

But with the changes to the nose to install the Laser its Appearance changed.

 

So for a DCS Draken a Danish skin would be very likley if not as proper as a austrian or finnish

 

(as their aircraft were visually identical to the draken in swedish service depending on the variant)

 

But i cant Help to think that a Danish strike Draken With hud could be an interesting module aswell ^^.

Edited February 21, 2016 by mattebubben

[BlackLion213]

I dont want to start hearing ppl complaining once its released that the viggen sucks etc because its not a "good" fighter etc as the fighter role is not the primary task of the AJ/AJS 37.

 

Oh yeah, this part will definitely happen - it should be lumped in with "death and taxes" around these parts. :doh:

 

[ame]

[/ame]

 

-Nick

[Hummingbird]

Im not not disputing the F-4E had comparable performances to the mig-21 in many areas.

 

Im just saying the F-5E is a more comparable aircraft...

 

While the F-4E and Mig-21 where completely different aircraft that fought very differently the F-5E and the Mig-21 where more comparable in size and the roles they where designed for etc.

 

Both the F-5E and Mig-21 where small light cost effective single seat fighters optimised for wvr combat.

 

The F-4E was a large expensive heavy two seat fighter whos design prioritised tech like a large radar and bvr missiles over agillity and close in combat.

 

As such the F-5E and Mig-21 are more comparable since they are comparable aircraft for a comparable role.

 

While the F-4E is a very different aircraft.

 

Sure the F-4E can and will do the same missions / duties but it would do the differently and has a different focus.

 

I have never disputed that the F-4E has preformance matching the mig-21 in many areas.

 

Im just saying that the F-5E design is more comparable to the mig-21 then the F-4E is.

 

A even closer aircraft would probably be the F-104 since its even closer to the mig-21 then the F-5 is in many areas

(like speed and being single engined).

 

Well AFAIK the F-5E was never designed as an interceptor where'as the MiG-21Bis was, so even in those terms I don't see the similarity. IMHO the F-4 is just a much closer match, esp. as the AIM-7 wasn't particularly reliable in the 70's, thus that wouldn't be a game changing advantage ingame, infact it probably wouldn't mean all that much as most MiG pilots are already used to hugging the mountain valleys ;)

 

The F-104 would indeed be an interesting match up with the MiG-21, but I think the MiG holds most of the cards in that one.

[Drastuc]

Well AFAIK the F-5E was never designed as an interceptor where'as the MiG-21Bis was

Well the F-5E loaded for air to air was very much a short range 'frontal aviation' interceptor in the same vein as the F-16A & MiG-29. It certainly wasn't an air superiority fighter.

[mattebubben]

Well AFAIK the F-5E was never designed as an interceptor where'as the MiG-21Bis was, so even in those terms I don't see the similarity. IMHO the F-4 is just a much closer match, esp. as the AIM-7 wasn't particularly reliable in the 70's, thus that wouldn't be a game changing advantage ingame, infact it probably wouldn't mean all that much as most MiG pilots are already used to hugging the mountain valleys ;)

 

The F-104 would indeed be an interesting match up with the MiG-21, but I think the MiG holds most of the cards in that one.

 

The Mig-21 was never designed as a interceptor.

 

But it was Designed to be able to do the interceptor role there is a difference.

 

Im gonna make one last attempt...

 

Lets take the AJ 37 as an example.

 

If i want to compare the AJ 37 i will compare with with a Aircraft with a similar role like the Su 17/22.

 

I wont Compare it to a Panavia Tornado just because its closer to the AJ 37 in flight performance and speed.

 

I will compare it to an aircraft with a more similar philosophy of use / role.

Edited February 22, 2016 by mattebubben

[Hummingbird]

Aaah the Draken, see now THAT would've been cool! :)

[Hummingbird]

The Mig-21 was never designed as a interceptor.

 

But it was Designed to be able to do the interceptor role there is a difference.

 

But i give up...

 

Its clear you are not listening to what i say... so there is no point with me saying any more since you obviously dont see my point nor are you trying to see it.

 

Well it goes both ways Matte, you're not really trying to see it from my view either.

[Hummingbird]

Well the F-5E loaded for air to air was very much a short range 'frontal aviation' interceptor in the same vein as the F-16A & MiG-29. It certainly wasn't an air superiority fighter.

 

Every fighter can be pressed into an interceptor role, the F-5 wasn't designed for the role in any way however, and it was rather ill suited for it too considering its mediocre top speed and climb rate.

 

By comparison both the F-16 & MiG-29 were designed with the interceptor role in mind as one their key missions.

 

The F-5 was primarily designed as a low cost air day superiority fighter, one the company could earn good money on via export sales. Northrop never really bet on the USAF as it never really had any interest in it considering it already operated more capable aircraft in any of the F-5's concievable roles.

[mattebubben]

Well it goes both ways Matte, you're not really trying to see it from my view either.

 

I do...

 

And ive said multiple times that i acknowledge that the F-4E is close to the Mig-21 bis in terms of performance in many if not most areas.

 

And in some areas more so then the F-5E.

 

But that does not mean the two they are as comparable as aircraft.

 

And i edited the comment you quoted with another example of aircraft comparisons.

 

 

Lets take the AJ 37 as an example.

 

If i want to compare the AJ 37 i will compare with with a Aircraft with a similar role like the Su 17/22.

 

I wont Compare it to a Panavia Tornado just because its closer to the AJ 37 in flight performance and speed.

 

I will compare it to an aircraft with a more a similar philosophy of use / role.

Edited February 22, 2016 by mattebubben

[Hummingbird]

I do...

 

And ive said multiple times that i acknowledge that the F-4E is close to the Mig-21 bis in terms of performance in many if not most areas.

 

And in some areas more so then the F-5E.

 

But that does not mean the two aircraft are as comparable as aircraft.

 

Well I do see your point as well, and I apologize that I didn't get that across. It's just that I am more fond of comparing aircraft that if they met each other in the air would actually be a good match for each other, esp. as this is more interesting gameplay wise.

 

Now that you mentioned it the Panavia Tornado and AJ 37 would for example also be quite an even match I'd assume, being capable of the same roles, both primarily being strike aircraft and both also quite capable in the air to air role. Only reason I wouldn't like that match up is for the obvious reason that they were never enemies :)

[mattebubben]

Well I do see your point as well, and I apologize that I didn't get that across. It's just that I am more fond of comparing aircraft that if they met each other in the air would actually be a good match for each other, esp. as this is more interesting gameplay wise.

 

Now that you mentioned it the Panavia Tornado and AJ 37 would for example also be quite an even match I'd assume, being capable of the same roles, both primarily being strike aircraft and both also quite capable in the air to air role. Only reason I wouldn't like that match up is for the obvious reason that they were never enemies :)

 

But See Thats a completly different discussion for me =P

 

But i was never talking about a VS scenario but what aircraft where the most similar.

 

In a VS Scenario they would be very closely matched and pilots and tactics would make the difference.

 

And about the AJ 37 and Tornado.

 

They are very similar in that they do.

 

But in some ways its closer to the tornado then those others.

 

But i tend not to compare it with the Tornado because the Tornado is a heavier more expensive 2 seat aircraft.

 

With significantly heavier payload and more focus on the interdiction focus

and also being more difficult and expensive to maintain.

 

And as such it had a different design philosophy for doing the same jobs.

 

And i tend to not want to do direct comparisons between Single seat and two seat aircraft since while they do the same tasks they operate differently and they get a trade off between size/weight for the extra room/abillites that a dedicated guy for the weapon systems gives you.

 

For those reasons i tend to lean towards the AJ 37 being closer to the Su-17/22.

 

But it does have many similarities with the Tornado

 

(including having separate strike and fighter variants)

 

But the AJ 37 - Tornado might not have been the best comparison but was the best i could think off at such short notice xD.

 

But the AJ-37 is still probably closer to the Su-17/22 in its role / design philosophy.

Edited February 22, 2016 by mattebubben