renhanxue

rb 04 spotted I guess you needed to clarify what 28:11 meant huh

Leatherneck does not necessarily need to announce things via the ED newsletter.

The teaser did say 28:11, not 28:10. I don't expect anything really before November 28th.

I may have spoken a bit too soon and too much (was on my phone and writing from memory). The flight manual doesn't have a great deal to say about the passive mode, it just says that in passive mode the antenna executes the wide sweep program as normal and "any radar jamming is presented on the head-down display". Seems to me like it's only really useful for finding ECM sources targeted specifically at your radar.

The radar does have a passive mode, yes - you can use it just as a receiver, and also record the input. This is indeed a poor man's ELINT; it's mainly useful for figuring out what hostile e-war stuff is doing, but I believe it can also be useful for aiming rb 04 in home-on-jam mode. I guess it could also be used to find surface-to-air radars but it would require them to be working on the same frequency band as the PS-37/A, I think?

Better than nothing?

Oh, no, sorry if I came off as hostile or something. I just want to understand what is going on here :) It sometimes does get into the territory of insufferable pedantry, and I should be more aware of that.

How far do you want to take that particular semantics argument? My understanding is that there are stick position and force sensors (but no pedal force sensors, so I was wrong on the original point anyway). Depending on your definition of force sensor, I guess. Still the original point of the argument stands; "givare" is used both for a pure sensor and for a device that can both generate stick forces (but perhaps it makes more sense if it can also report back the current force, something that I am not entirely clear on).

Right, sorry, stick position sensor. It's extra confusing because it's "spaklägesgivare" in the Swedish version - "givare" is used in the other sense there.

Pedals, not stick. But you're right, I went back and checked and "givare" is used in an unusual way here, the device in question is an artificial pedal force generator. Right and wrong. The artificial stick and pedal forces are a thing, yes, but there are force sensors on the stick even though the flight controls are mainly hydro-mechanical and not electronically governed. If you take a look at the English diagram again there's a "stick force sensor" right there, and that is correctly translated. It's used by the autopilot for various things like oscillation dampening, transonic trim, etc.

I agree with Sporg, I think the translator messed it up. I've seen some pretty obvious mistranslations in this just from glancing at it, for example the term "normalplan" (as in, the plane of the geometric normal - the vector perpendicular to a plane) got translated as "standard plane" which makes no sense at all.

Correct, but there's no English manual for the AJS 37, as far as I know.

I'm actually kind of retarded because I forgot I actually have that picture in English translation (from the unclassified part of the JA 37C English flight manual). The JA 37 isn't exactly the same (note for example four elevon servos per side instead of three) but it's close. One of these days I'll get the PDF finished, I promise...

As much as I hate to say it, I don't think Spacehamster is entirely wrong here even though he's clearly trolling. Cobra did say that there would be a relatively short time between announcement and release but he also did say that there would be "months" spent on marketing after the release crunch was over. Nothing was revealed in this week's newsletter. Next Friday is the 28th. If nothing is mentioned there either I'm just going to assume there will be nothing until the 28th of November (as hinted). Since Nov 28th isn't a Friday I believe it's just going to be an announcement and maybe pre-order opening and then an actual release maybe a month or two after that. It is worth keeping in mind though that Cobra seems to be an incurable time optimist and keeps overshooting deadlines over and over.

Functionally the inner and outer elevons are the same. However, the flight control system is designed so that the inner elevons are used for bigger, slower, less accurate control inputs. Their hydraulic servos are controlled by mechanical impulses from the steering differential (which combines pitch and roll inputs from the stick). The outer elevons are used for finer, quicker corrections. They are slaved to the inner elevons and usually follow their movements, but inputs to them can also be added via electrical impulses from the autopilot system (and remember here that the autopilot's artificial stick forces and oscillation dampening systems - "SPAK" mode - are normally always on). The end result of all of this is that the outer elevons can be deflected a max of ~10 degrees in either direction offset from the inner ones. By the way, while investigating this I found a mildly interesting tidbit in the aerodynamics compendium, namely that the control surfaces and wing configuration were designed so that the elevon deflection is zero at a load factor of 2 at M > 1. The reason for this is limiting the size and force of the hydraulic system - if the system had been designed for zero deflection in ordinary subsonic level flight, dimensioning the elevon servos to allow pulling 8 positive G's would also automatically allowed pulling 8 negative G's, which, as the aerodynamics compendium puts it, "one hardly has any use for". Instead the asymmetric design results in the servo forces "bottoming out" at +8 and -4 respectively, which is more reasonable and saves some space/weight.

Great research job on the MJ2 EFP's guys!

Your reply was better though :) In other news, an email came in:

Both MJ1 and MJ2 have a pulse-doppler radar altimeter that acts as a proximity fuze and detonates the submunition at a certain altitude. As a backup there is also a contact fuze that detonates on hitting the ground, an a timer-based autodestruction one to avoid UXO. The description implies (but does not state outright) that the MJ2 forms more than one EFP, which isn't all that weird to think considering that it weighs 17 kg. Looking at the cutaway picture of it, I wonder if the weird jaggy edges of the cut are supposed to represent the parts of the steel shell that forms the EFP's. Just speculating, though. Both MJ1 and MJ2 are equipped with parachutes, by the way.

I'm not sure if you can actually do that, though. The AJS 37 SFI does say that "using the AB while reversing causes heat damage to the aircraft" but the JA 37 SFI simply says reversing is only possible up to MIL power. IIRC from talking to a former Viggen mechanic I think there's supposed to be a safety interlock somewhere but I can't find it in the SFI's. Reversing does muck around with the afterburner fuel control unit so there could easily be a lockout there.

For the benefit of those who don't follow the "big" AJS 37 thread... Added: Beskrivning bombkapsel M90 Taktiska anvisningar för attackförband, 1961 års utgåva Anvisningar för telefonitrafik vid flygning Ammunitionskatalog, data och bilder: flygvapnet (1984)

Beskrivning Bombkapsel M90 MJ2 is not guided as far as I can tell.

Development mostly complete by 1991, final series production deliveries in spring 1997. Also, you know the submunition designations, MJ1 and MJ2? They're Inception acronyms, because MJ expands to MUSJAS which expands to Multi Splitter JAS (and JAS expands to Jakt Attack Spaning, as we all know). Surely you must be joking, FMV. Gonna post the Bk90 systems description in a bit.

Someone clearly digitized his old 8mm wedding home video to VHS while reusing an old tape, and dubbed over some interesting stuff, duh.

Cobra you troll, VHS wasn't a thing in 1967. Where is the 8mm film?

February 8th, 1967.