the SAAB F-35 has recently been added to the Dev server, this thread is there to Discuss bugs and reports for it
statcard
Edit window:
the current state is very raw
2 Likes
Current situation
6 Pylons +2 Partially finished
No radar
J35XS Damage model
Recon type nose of WNDS version
Flares similar to the 35XS
one Gun only
Hopefully it’ll get both its guns and all the hardpoints being able to carry what they can
Well, I’ll start with the most obvious ones since I have all the sources on it.
-
The aircraft is missing the second ADEN + slot for it in the left wing (probably just a case of copying the model first and editing it later)
-
It is missing the center 9th pylon (5) (although rarely used, even the late service flight manual shows it can and would be used in extreme cases for bombs exclusively on the F-35)
-
They did give it the increased fuel capacity, but haven’t modelled the new fuel tanks as far as I can see (I do not have a concrete number on me at the moment for how long the engine should be able to run, but 28 minutes compared to the standard 21 minutes seems about right)
-
It currently doesn’t have the addition of MFCD to its full extent, and lacks EMFCD entirely (I suspect this will be coming before release, as it is the only thing that explains the current battle rating)
-
Datamine said it got AIM-9B and AIM-9N, which I hope is a simplification, as it should have AIM-9B FGW.2 and AIM-9N-2, as well as AIM-9N-3 DE-84. The DE-84 is debatable since that one changes the fuse type in a way I’m not sure the game has modelled yet, so I can live without it in that case. The FGW.2 is more resistent to the sun so that’s always nice. And the 9N-2 is special in that it currently has a unique burn time for Sidewinders; 3.2 seconds. This is due to the SR116 rocket motor installed on it. I have not found another Sidewinder in the game that has this burn time at all, with the only similar missiles being SRAAM and R-27ET. Obviously not a great comparison since one self destructs upon running out, and the other has a much higher specific impulse, but they are the closest IR comparisons I could find burn time wise.
There are probably more, but this is just what strikes my mind immediately. Very happy to see it though!
4 Likes
As much as we both want AIM-9N-2, we know it most likely won’t get them and it’ll stick with 9N
Well, that’s plainly just inaccurate, since it never operated AIM-9N
And I will keep pointing at this thing until it is added properly, because it is the biggest upgrade you could possibly put on a 9N
5 Likes
We can point it out all we like sadly, RB24J (AIM-9P-3) has been pointed out for years and they’ve done absolutely nothing to give it its differences from the regular 9P and it frustrates alot of us
3 Likes
I should also note the aircraft is called Saab 35XD by Saab themselves, not XF. Very minor detail and that only really affects the forum here
Though speaking of the name, Saab F-35 is plainly wrong as well for the game. That term has never been used, and since they are adding the WDNS mod, they should just rename it to F-35 (WDNS) in-game (Saab never had a designation for the WDNS mod so calling it Saab 35XD would not be wise either when the base model is added later, which should be called A35XD if you insist on using Saab designations)
2 Likes
That’s a thing that i don’t really like in wt, it’s called double standards, for example the aim120c is specified as a block 5 but the 9M’s block isn’t specified at all.
If anything, it should be as you say, be called F-35 (WDNS) since that is its service name, where as the Saab 35XD is the manufacture model number.
It would be like calling the Halifax, H.P.61 (manufacture model number) instead of its service name of Halifax B.III.
1 Like
Now this sounds interesting.
Whats the G pull?
Should be about the same as the AIM-9N, the only real modification of note to it is the new SR116 motor
Havent really caught up to DEV, but last time i head someone talk about them, they said something along the lines of 20G peak pull, thats correct?
I believe so, yes
Well if it comes, i know what im researching next.
was someone able to test if the carrier hook works allready?
As far as I could see, no. And it isn’t technically a carrier hook, but simply a landing hook for (presumably) shorter runways. The Swedish Drakens were meant to have them, but never installed any. The Danish ones on the other hand, did get them. They were notoriously annoying, with a tendency to swivel to the sides upon landing, which made it a little troublesome to stop the aircraft from plowing off the runway
So aim-n2 would essentially play like a aim9j with range comparable to a 9g?
Range would be averaging out at 3.2km, 9G has a 5s burn so that’s why it has such a long range