Sporg Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 Probably an AJ, the AJS upgrade was performed in the 90s :-) :thumbup: System specs: Gigabyte Aorus Master, i7 9700K@std, GTX 1080TI OC, 32 GB 3000 MHz RAM, NVMe M.2 SSD, Oculus Quest VR (2x1600x1440) Warthog HOTAS w/150mm extension, Slaw pedals, Gametrix Jetseat, TrackIR for monitor use Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffdude Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 I'll bet there are some Viggen fans out here just salivating while waiting for the 28th to roll around. I hope that It'll be view-able after the fact for those of us at work. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattebubben Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 (edited) A little more to dream about? :) Not sure of the type, but a "Gustav 24" taking off at the Flight Day in Hultsfred 7th of august 1988. Looks like it could be an AJ or AJS though. Would sure look fine in DCS. :) Picture was originally posted by the Swedish aviation blog, Lae - inte bara en stad på Nya Guinea. That would be an AJ 37. Since as RaXha noted 1988 is before the AJS 37 Upgrade. But if you look at the nose marking you can see a number that looks to be a 7. That designates this as an aircraft belonging to the F7 Wing stationed at Såtenäs and they only Operated the AJ/AJS 37 thus this has to be an AJ 37 =). Edited November 22, 2016 by mattebubben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myHelljumper Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 That would be an AJ 37. Since as RaXha noted 1988 is before the AJS 37 Upgrade. But if you look at the nose marking you can see a number that looks to be a 7. That designates this as an aircraft belonging to the F7 Wing stationed at Såtenäs and they only Operated the AJ/AJS 37 thus this has to be an AJ 37 =). The man who knows it all.... :D Helljumper - M2000C Guru Helljumper's Youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK3rTjezLUxPbWHvJJ3W2fA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaXha Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 I'll bet there are some Viggen fans out here just salivating while waiting for the 28th to roll around. I hope that It'll be view-able after the fact for those of us at work. It's probably no coincidence that the stream will be at 8pm Swedish time. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattebubben Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 Not all of it =P. I know some things but far from all =P. And one of the things i do know is that F7 only flew the AJ/AJS 37 so a 7 on the nose of a Viggen means it has to be an Attack Viggen =P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mjau Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Not all of it =P. I know some things but far from all =P. And one of the things i do know is that F7 only flew the AJ/AJS 37 so a 7 on the nose of a Viggen means it has to be an Attack Viggen =P. Did they ever paint jaktviggen in green camouflage anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sim Flyer Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 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 ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snail Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Not all of it =P. I know some things but far from all =P. And one of the things i do know is that F7 only flew the AJ/AJS 37 so a 7 on the nose of a Viggen means it has to be an Attack Viggen =P. Not only that, but also the vertical stab and the number of hinges (3) on the main wing are a big givaway that it isn't a JA37, which had 4 hinges: How (s)low can you go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sporg Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 I love how people are so knowledgeable in here. So, an AJ-37, Gustav 24 from F7, it must have been. System specs: Gigabyte Aorus Master, i7 9700K@std, GTX 1080TI OC, 32 GB 3000 MHz RAM, NVMe M.2 SSD, Oculus Quest VR (2x1600x1440) Warthog HOTAS w/150mm extension, Slaw pedals, Gametrix Jetseat, TrackIR for monitor use Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilWillis Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 But there are 4 hinges visible in the picture aren't there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snail Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 But there are 4 hinges visible in the picture aren't there? In the above picture of the JA37, yes. Not in the picture of the F7 aircraft, you can compare them. How (s)low can you go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goblin Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goblin Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Did they ever paint jaktviggen in green camouflage anyway? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renhanxue Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattebubben Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattebubben Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sim Flyer Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snail Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 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. How (s)low can you go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuiGon Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 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. Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattebubben Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilWillis Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattebubben Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongolf Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkman Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Sinking the covetry https://youtu.be/DyH0zjmZGUY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts