Jump to content

JA-37 fighter variant


bies

Recommended Posts

Is fighter variant JA-37 on the developers radar? Some cold war JA-37 would be moody especially with the Baltic map against MiG-21/23/29s and Su-27s. It had radar and fire control system similar to F-15 and more powerfull engine.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd guess the JA 37D falls under classified since half the stuff is JAS stuff (are you too impressed by my technical language?)

But maybe the earlier JA 37C or the others could be viable.

You know, monopulse SkyFlash sticks under wings, only 2 of them, flying along side of Sparrow-carrying F-15's in a amraam free environment.

Old Style.

Oh the never-to-come wonderful world of singleplayer.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't think this is going to happen. However HB has something going on with Saab which might involve the Gripen..

 

A stretch, unless they've said something specifically. They're, most likely, just garnering technical information from Saab to support the Viggen and AI Draken.

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swedish standard term of expiry for classification is 40 years. You can get stuff declassified before that, but it's a pain and takes forever (especially since that debacle with the accidental release of some RBS 15 info a few years back - they've tightened up their procedures since). I know a small part of the JA 37 flight manual has been declassified (the part containing aerodynamic performance charts) but I wouldn't be surprised if someone goes for requesting declassification of the entire manual around 2021 or so (I think the original was published in 1981).

 

The part of the JA 37 that might be still classified is the data link, because as I understand it, it got adapted and improved and carried over to the Gripen, where it is a fighter-to-fighter link in addition to Link 16 even to this day. This is me speculating though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, monopulse SkyFlash sticks under wings, only 2 of them, flying along side of Sparrow-carrying F-15's in a amraam free environment.

Old Style.

Oh the never-to-come wonderful world of singleplayer.

 

Just like Mirage, MiG-29, Su-27, F-5, MiG-21 and all aircrafts in the game, only Hornet and F-15 have AMRAAM (and MiG-29C R-77). Nearly whole DCS enviroment is from '80s-'90s. It would fit perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swedish standard term of expiry for classification is 40 years. You can get stuff declassified before that, but it's a pain and takes forever (especially since that debacle with the accidental release of some RBS 15 info a few years back - they've tightened up their procedures since). I know a small part of the JA 37 flight manual has been declassified (the part containing aerodynamic performance charts) but I wouldn't be surprised if someone goes for requesting declassification of the entire manual around 2021 or so (I think the original was published in 1981).

 

The part of the JA 37 that might be still classified is the data link, because as I understand it, it got adapted and improved and carried over to the Gripen, where it is a fighter-to-fighter link in addition to Link 16 even to this day. This is me speculating though.

 

Cool, 2021 we might have the viggen exciting EA and RAT fully functional



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love an early sparrow only JA 37... I think it wouldn't take them too long to do it and it would be perfect for every Cold War, SARH scenario... newer versions would need lot of rework and some stuff is still classified due to carry over to the JAS 39


Edited by FoxAlfa

-------

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... This is me speculating though.

 

Wish more people used this kind of disclaimer :)

 

Regarding the subject, I’m happy with the Viggen as is and I’d prefer to see HB focusing on developing an A-6 Intruder, thus leveraging the Jester AI and multiseat technologies that they have already created for the Tomcat.

 

If HB really had more available resources, I’d still would prefer a Baltic Map rather than another variant of the Viggen ... meaning that I would most likely purchase the map, but probably not a JA-37 as I already own the AJ variant.

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love an early sparrow only JA 37... I think it wouldn't take them too long to do it and it would be perfect for every Cold War, SARH scenario... newer versions would need lot of rework and some stuff is still classified due to carry over to the JAS 39

 

Yeah I'd like the older version, and while I'm ignorant as to how similar it would be to the current version, they are doing both the F14A and B. So I'm just wondering how much more development time the fighter version might need. Also, I'd buy a fighter version, and a baltic map...

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Brits still have the English Electric Lighting classified.

 

Yeah the stuff the British keep "classified" is often really bizzare.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely different avionics and cockpit, datalink (which afaik is still classified and the reason a JA-37 isn't that realistic), slightly (I guess?) FM due to different rudder/tail and uprated engine.

 

 

The AJS and JA differ far more from each other than the F-14A and B we are getting/got do - if anything, the closest example we have in DCS are the Fw-190A and D. I'd happily buy a JA if it came out, but to be honest I'd rather HB focused on the current Viggen/Tomcat developement, and on the Intruder/Tornado/whatever/Draken in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely different avionics and cockpit, datalink (which afaik is still classified and the reason a JA-37 isn't that realistic)

 

I've seen several people say this but I don't really understand why that would be a show-stopper. I mean, the method of encryption being used in the link is pretty much irrelevant in regards to simulating it anyway, and regarding things like range and update rate and bandwidth, I'm sure some reasonable estimations can be done. We don't have the exact performance figures for a lot of missiles and such either, but people seem to be fine with making some educated guesses there so how is this so different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely different avionics and cockpit, datalink (which afaik is still classified and the reason a JA-37 isn't that realistic), slightly (I guess?) FM due to different rudder/tail and uprated engine.

 

 

The AJS and JA differ far more from each other than the F-14A and B we are getting/got do - if anything, the closest example we have in DCS are the Fw-190A and D. I'd happily buy a JA if it came out, but to be honest I'd rather HB focused on the current Viggen/Tomcat developement, and on the Intruder/Tornado/whatever/Draken in the future.

 

Thanks, that does sound like alot more work.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen several people say this but I don't really understand why that would be a show-stopper. I mean, the method of encryption being used in the link is pretty much irrelevant in regards to simulating it anyway, and regarding things like range and update rate and bandwidth, I'm sure some reasonable estimations can be done. We don't have the exact performance figures for a lot of missiles and such either, but people seem to be fine with making some educated guesses there so how is this so different?

 

Yeah, I've oft wondered about why certain things aren't ballpark modeled more. I mean comm encryption and freq-hopping schemes are pretty well restricted even stuff from the 70's. But any sort of detail of that can be abstracted in game to "load freqs/hopsets/whatever" by connecting the " magic fill device" hit load, wait, select chanel A and bingo, you have magically secure comms. But given the actual "state" of EW modeling in the game being close to non-existent it doesn't matter anyway, even though it should. But that would get me into a very long diatribe of how "accurate" DCS is in simulating "Modern air combat", which, well...

 

A data link would largely be the same thing, much like whats modeled via link4 on the tomcat. The main "in game" sensitivity could be about exactly what type of data is shared or how its represented which might be exploitable.


Edited by Harlikwin

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...