Viggens are designed to do this if you crash without a valid reason (being shot down).
5 Likes
So, @Wes, @AndyE, and I did some combined anti-shipping sorties in Ira’Dib tonight, using the Viggen’s radar for heading and range. Wes was in a F-18 while Andy was escort as a F-14. Our target: a Kuznetsov with two Grisha escorts. The first sortie was just me and Wes, flying south of El Jask where the ship group was off the coast. Flying at 30,000ft (due to the overall flying distance, we flew at altitude to regulate fuel consumption), I was able to get a fix at 120km away. Passing ranging and azimuth information to Wes, his Harpoons were on the way at medium altitude, being launched at approximately 90km away. I dove down to the deck and closed in to 60km away to launch RB-15Fs. Four missiles were launched and all went into a Grisha, which was “sunk” by the first RB-15F.
Turning away, we ran at maximum possible speed from a bunch of angry Su-33s. One of them got close enough that he fired on Wes, but the missile didn’t have enough juice and he pulled away, seemingly coming for me. I readied Sidewinder but he went past me, apparently focused on our AWACS. I tried a snapshot with a RB-24J but apparently was too far away and the missile ran out of juice. A second one resulted in the same. I went for stage 3 burner at this point and pressed Mach 1.4 at altitude, with the Flanker still pulling away, until he started turning. I got a good distance and tone this time around so fired two RB-74s, both striking him, but he still got an Archer off which downed an F-16.
We landed at Al Minhad and rearmed, then headed out, this time with Andy providing cover. As one of the Kuznetsov’s escorts was sunk, we hoped instead to focus on the big ship itself. Flying outside of radar coverage, we planned a slightly longer route, then approached from the south. As before, I passed bearing and range information to Wes, him launching his missiles at altitude and me diving down to launch on the deck. Unfortunately this time, the ship’s defenses were on point and all four missiles were shot down. Turning tail and running, Wes and I made a lazy turn southwest before heading west, while Andy attempted to destroy our pursuers. Unfortunately, his first AIM-54 missed, leaving him with two Flankers on his tail. Wes turned around to assist and destroyed one of Andy’s pursuers, allowing him to come around and engage the wingman. He fired two AIM-7s with no hits, but managed to score an AIM-9 hit which damaged the Flanker.
At this point, Wes was engaging another wave of Flankers and killed one with an AIM-120, dodging return Alamo fire, then Andy finished the last one off with an AIM-54. I found the damaged Flanker that Andy had hit earlier and finished him off with an RB-24J. We returned to base and loaded up again, but this time I suggested Wes take an ugly payload with two tanks and three Harpoons.
Flying a similar route, we again set out to attack the Kuznetsov, though I detected the ships at 80km instead of 120km and this shortened our reaction time. We fired off 5 missiles in total, but a single RB-15 made it through and damaged the ship. Andy made a more proactive move against Flanker opposition this time and shot down one with an AIM-54, then turned and joined us on our route back to base. The Flankers did not pursue us this time.
At base, we again rearmed, but changed the strategy to give ourselves a bit more room in engaging the Kuznetsov. Its position had shifted much further west and I saw it visually off my 10 O’clock, so directed Wes to make a southward turn and descent (we noticed the SAMs were having more luck picking off Harpoons at altitude). I gave Wes a wide berth to stagger his missile launches, then waited longer before launching my RB-15s. This allowed all of our missiles to arrive at roughly the same time, saturating the defenses; Wes’ Harpoons were all shot down, but my RB-15s hit and the Kuznetsov was sunk.
Through all this, we determined that the RB-15s are a superior anti-shipping weapon compared to the Harpoon and that the Viggen’s radar, while useful, doesn’t make up for the Harpoon’s shortcomings. The biggest threat to the RB-15s were the Kashtan/CIWS on the ships, as the missiles flew close enough to the water that the SAMs had difficulty tracking. Further, the RB-15s have a much more powerful warhead as well as a much greater speed. The Harpoons were almost always destroyed by SA-15 missiles due to their flight profile.
8 Likes
That sounds like a whole bunch of fun!!
The Rb15 is a formidable anti-shipping missile, with its 200kg warhead and 200km range.
But the CK37 wasn’t designed to shoot it and it shows… 
5 Likes
That all reads as huge fun. Feel like I’m missing out, but I’m on a little jedi journey that’s fun too
3 Likes
That’s funny! We saw the message saying you had ejected and then another one saying you had landed at Al Dhafra straight after! I just assumed it was DCS being weird…wish I’d seen it lol
Something trivial I noticed from screenshots and AARs with the Viggen is that it seems bombs are the most frequently used weapons by the community, while it is my understanding in reality bombs were the least important weapon used by the Viggen.
Well true up to a point in that they are easiest to deploy. I am busy making and flying scenarios using BK90 standoff weapons the rb15 and rb04 ship killers. I can’t get the hang of those steerable missiles yet and the mavs are a PITA to lock on.
I am just getting back into it and might make some intercept missions next😎
1 Like
I think people should look into the unguided rockets more. They are very easy to use and I think were the mainstay general A-G weapon of the Viggen. They are very powerful too.
But you can’t fire salvos, they are a very effective weapon though they really f@@k stuff up just wish I could fire 2 at a time 
A great discussion! I am getting a lot of info and ideas for missions.
Let’s ask the “expert” to jump in here.
@Troll, what were typical load outs for various missions. And how were they flown tactics-wise? For example, when I read about the rockets being used in either short range or long range? Short range I understand. When would you use long range? Also the Maverick. As was mentioned a 
to get locked. You pretty much need to be on AP flying straight and level so not something you would use while junking around…I would think.
2 Likes
…and I just found this. It is 3 years old but looks pretty up to date (except the ELINT database). I put stuff like this on my iPad and it fits great with the PDF reader…although I think this may have been meant for kneeboard display???
1 Like
True, but you can’t drop the bombs individually either though. I think unless you are attacking a convoy conveniently aligned along a road, ARAK is almost always the superior weapon than the 120 kg bombs.
I think this might be a good opportunity to re-post some of my Viggen clips 
9 Likes
Fantastic…remember to fold your wings when you turn out of the wires
I see now one thing that I have been doing wrong. I have put my Pop-Up point too close to the final heading to the target point. In that first video it is clear that you want a significant heading change so that you can quickly roll (less than inverted) and dive onto the target heading. That was probably obvious to the rest of the gang…I must have missed the memo. 
In the second video - How were you able to lock theMaverick that fast?
I do all my pop-ups by making a 30° offset turn and then pulling up into a 30° climb (also with the Hornet or the Harrier). The distance to pop depends on weapon to be employed.
The Maverick can be locked-on fairly quickly if you follow the right technique. Find the target visually and maneuver the aircraft to put the boresight on the HUD on target. Only then shift your view to the TV display to make the lock-on. Do not search for the target and aim through the TV.
I think it is also important to have realistic expectations in regard to lock-on range. Remember that this is a first generation TV Maverick which is a precision guided weapon, NOT a stand-off weapon. Realistic weapon launch range will be similar to bombs and probably less than heavy unguided rockets.
3 Likes
Yeah…well…that’s the thing isn’t it…every time I’ve tried to do that there isa tree in the way or something… 
need to figure those sight lines ahead of time. 
Ohh. Could you kindly do a writeup on your Viggen Case 1 recovery? With airspeed and all of the other stuff needed to succed. Pretty? Please?
You make it seem so effortless.
It would also make Troll more happy, if I could learn to land on a carrier without wrecking to many Viggens.
Well, I never flew the beast. I just loaded it…
I have some litterature… Maybe I should spend some of my coronantine time on translating the most interesting parts?
The Viggen was an interdictor. Go in fast, strike and get the heck outta Dodge.
It was based on Swedish defense doctrine of an enemy landing from the east. So initial seastrike with Rb04 and later Rb15. As the enemy landed you’d hit them with bombs as you could get in and out quickly. The empty racks didn’t slow you down like empty rocketpods would. Bombs could also be used as anti-personell weapons if you used daisy cutter fuses. Rockets were the better option agains hard targets like tanks, with shaped charges and instant fuses. The Rb05 would probably only see action as A2A against large transports, as would the gunpods. The Rb75 Maveric was an afterthought. The Rb05 had obvious shortcomings and a TV guided option was planned. But that role was given to the Maverick instead.
The Viggens primary defense was speed.
6 Likes
Well that depends greatly upon your point of view.
At this time I only have about 3 or 4 under my belt, but I haven’t really done any flying since I as something of the first attempted to carrier land the lovely bird.
2 Likes