Thank you for posting that! I got a little bit of my Viggen mojo back from it - it’s been missing a little bit.
I’ve had long days between child-minding and trying to get work done from home…and by the time Eva’s asleep and the house tidy, I’ve found it a little bit hard to get focused enough to practice the CK37 interface.
I’ve hopped online and tried to get stuff done with the F10 map with varying degrees of success/failure, but I don’t think I’m fluent enough with the interface yet to really have fun like that. Hence, I’ve been slipping into doing some Mi-8 CSAR stuff instead…
Getting back to doing built-for-purpose practice missions like the above would be much better for learning. Might see about doing that tonight.
Did anyone else notice a 300% increase in RB-75 options?
I was just minding my business on Hollo Point and noticed this in the loadout. Neither @Chuck_Owl’s guide nor the official manual speak of these new weapons! The RB-75 doesn’t even appear to exist in the DCS Encyclopedia.
Perhaps I’ve never noticed but it is mentioned in the forums that we only got the B with the Viggen because the seeker head is more zoomed in, helping target aquisition. The RB-75(A) and RB-75T are apparently based on the AGM-65A with the wide FOV seaker head.
@Troll I also read that the Viggen never carried the B in real life, any comments?
Did I simply never notice these before? To be quite honest I haven’t used AGM missiles with the Viggen in… years?
Good excuse to go do some testing!
EDIT: So it’s mentioned on the ED forums multiple times in 2017. I am most definitely at fault here!
Cool! I feel like the RB-75 overperforms substantially compared to the normal AGM-65 we have though. I wonder if HB programmed it different from ED’s Maverick.
Let’s just say I never hung a live one… Just the sim missiles with the active seeker.
The 37 was a dumb munitions dispenser when it came down to A/G. Primary mission was to stop boats. And for this I guess the 65A would do well? But there were better stand off munitions for this purpose.
I assume the RB-75 would have seen a lot of use aganst the Osa, Matka and Tarantul missile boats that the Baltic was chock full of, the amphibious assault hovercraft or against the landing ships once they were in the Swedish archipelago (and thus the Rb-04E was unusable).
And the RB-75T must have been the primary weapon against bridges in the northern invasion scenario.
I always wondered why the Viggen were never equipped with at least the 1000 lb bomb from the Lansen for taking out bigger bridges. I have serious doubts that the RB-75T had the necessary punch to take out sturdy concrete bridges. History has shown that you need multiple hits by large caliber weapons to drop major bridges. During Desert Storm, the USN destroyed just 3 bridge spans with 34 1000 lb or 2000 lb LGB.
Sure, Sweden planned to blow their own bridges with engineers. But the Soviets knew this too and would have used Spetsnaz, helicopter air assaults and para drops to try to secure bridges intact ahead of their ground advance. What would have been the Swedish plan B if they failed to demolish a major bridge?
Also does anyone know if Sweden had a policy in regards to interdicting a Soviet advance in Finnish territory?
The archipelago is really dense around the mid Baltic sea, outside Stockholm. But once the enemy got that close they would be in range of the coastal artillery and torpedo batteries.
Yeah, the 75T and the Rb05, depending on the threat situation.
I have never heard of it. It’s not unthinkable if the Finnish forces were overrun and the Soviet army advanced towards the Swedish border. If the Finns were still in action, it would be a complicated action coordination.
When considering Swedish defense doctrine one must remember that nobody planned to win a war against the Warsaw pact. If they wanted to take Sweden, they could. But the only reason to do so would be to pose a threat to NATO and thus, taking Sweden would put NATO forces into action. So the defense doctrine called for delaying warfare. To make life as miserable as possible, for as long as possible, for the advancing enemy. The idea was that they would prefer another course of action and, inofficially, give NATO time to respond.
So, sink as many ships as possible. Destroy infrastructure like roads and bridges. Lay mines in their path…
The terrible replay system really plays a number on the Viggen, been trying to replay some multiplayer tracks to view in Tacview but DCS crashes in many a tree when you fly low… Anyone know a good alternative?
Tacview dies record multiplayer flights if the server has it enabled. Some servers disable it avoid cheating (Not just as a ‘live’ ATC view (which the delay helps with) but also so that you don’t know where every ground unit is).
I’ve been flying the Viggen quite a bit on Blue Flag recently, and I noticed that the FARP happily shoot down my BK-90’s. Any advice on how to employ it in multiplayer? I did notice a ZSU-23 trying to shoot them down on approach earlier… Seems a bit overzealous and skilled to me!
It is just like Russian naval combatants shooting down HARM with ungodly proficiency…in RL, that is just not going to happen.
I try to employ Air Defense systems where they make sense but not of types and positions where they will become absolutely impenetrable. It is fun to see ZU-23 sites trying to engage incoming BK-90s - a nice light show. But I wouldn’t put ZSU-23-4s in the same places. Gaming the system? Yeah, but you have to if yo don’t want total frustration.
Just checked the mission editor, looks like A Stinger based SAM system took down the BK-90… Makes no sense to me. Going to test a little in the editor.
EDIT: Yep… IR SAM systems can engage the BK-90… This is stupid
