DCS: AJS-37 Viggen Discussion

[mattebubben]

Too bad its not the variant we got matt. :)

 

I know we are not getting the JA and im actually happy we get the AJS instead since that is something that DCS needs more atm.

 

But im just curious about the missile =P.

 

And if it is a missile that actually did see service in any number in the swedish Airforce there is no reason to think it was not used on the AJ/AJS 37 as well.

 

But since ive never seen that Aim-9 Variant in swedish use before im a bit curious.

Edited April 27, 2016 by mattebubben

[theOden]

Looks like Rb 74 to me.

Any detail you see that makes it something else then an AIM-9L?

 

Edit: ah, now I see it, that front canard is more like the 9D etc. - I think it's a early mockup of the Rb 74 before it was received, to show case the Rb 74 and Sky Flash arrangement.

Edited April 27, 2016 by theOden

[dartuil]

I know we are not getting the JA and im actually happy we get the AJS instead since that is something that DCS needs more atm.

 

But im just curious about the missile =P.

 

And if it is a missile that actually did see service in any number in the swedish Airforce there is no reason to think it was not used on the AJ/AJS 37 as well.

 

But since ive never seen that Aim-9 Variant in swedish use before im a bit curious.

 

 

Ill be glad to fly with you oe day. Maybe in July? :P

Yep strange AIM-9.

I see your point you mean DCS need a bomber bomber as A10C is pretty slow. :)

[emg]

The rb 28's on the outermost pylons are shrouded in mystery too, they weren't used normally and I'm not even sure if the wiring for them was in place on all aircraft.

 

From what I read (ages ago in a flight magazine, would scan it if I could find it) they were cleared for wartime usage, but their mounted lifespan was so short that they didn't carry them on normal peacetime flights.

[BravoYankee4]

From what I read (ages ago in a flight magazine, would scan it if I could find it) they were cleared for wartime usage, but their mounted lifespan was so short that they didn't carry them on normal peacetime flights.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2606358&postcount=611

[Skjold]

From what I read (ages ago in a flight magazine, would scan it if I could find it) they were cleared for wartime usage, but their mounted lifespan was so short that they didn't carry them on normal peacetime flights.

 

Yeah that is common place in general, if anybody didn't know munitions also have a lifespan just like airframes do and every time you fly with them they slowly get degraded. That is why you see planes in peacetime often carry no missiles at all, very few missiles or fake training missiles.

 

That said, i never seen any mention of those missiles being used on the Viggen at all.

[cro_mig_21]

As May is closing in...I feel a certain itch...Viggen itch

[emg]

Yeah that is common place in general, if anybody didn't know munitions also have a lifespan...

 

The thing with the AJ-37 was the vibration issue (with the outer pylons) which reduced the lifespan very quickly.

 

Didn't find my old magazines but found this poster who is an AF tech

Vibrationer, jag vill minnas att det endast var ett krigsalternativ att hänga längst ut på vingen.

http://forum.soldf.com/topic/5168-saab-ja-37-viggen-aj-37-ajs-37-sk-37-

sf-37-sh-37/?p=739377

Edited April 28, 2016 by emg

[mattebubben]

The thing with the AJ-37 was the vibration issue (with the outer pylons) which reduced the lifespan very quickly.

 

Didn't find my old magazines but found this poster who is an AF tech

http://forum.soldf.com/topic/5168-saab-ja-37-viggen-aj-37-ajs-37-sk-37-

sf-37-sh-37/?p=739377

 

But was this not a problem for the RB24 series of missiles? (Aim-9)

 

Since both the SH 37 JA 37 and AJS 37 did regularly carry RB24J (or RB 74 in the case of the JA 37)

 

on the Outer pylons.

 

So was it just a weakness for the RB-28 Mount/Missile?

[emg]

Maybe, I don't know, but I've read they fixed the vibrations in the JA by changing the ventral fin. Again I can't find that source, but here's a relevant forum post which references Krister Karling's book:

 

...Bukfenan hade alltså i det fall där den bäst behövdes ingen aerodynamisk effekt! I stället fick man, som tidigare nämnts, problem med vibrationer.

 

Vibrationsproblemen bestod bl a i de undre luftbromsarnas inverkan; dessa gjordes därför perforerade. Vidare gav yttre last vibrationer. Det hjälpte inte att förstärka fenan, utan man valde att kapa av det bakre hörnet.

http://forum3.sff.n.se/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=827

I think he is only talking about the AJ here. But you can see the JA's ventral fin has been redesigned, compared to the AJ's fin.

Edited April 28, 2016 by emg

[mattebubben]

I found a Video Clip with some nice Viggen Footage (including interviews with pilots)

Its in swedish but the footage might still be interesting for those not speaking english.

 

[ame]

[/ame]

 

Sadly one of the pilots in the footage (Interviewed at 4:13)

died in an accident the week after the footage was taken.

 

He struck the water during a Recce flight against russian ships at a low altitude

(there was bad visibillity due to weather and a russian Anti-Submarine aircraft came out of the clouds and the Viggen pilot tried to go below the russian aircraft and struck the water)

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

I light have the Havkom report somewhere, But My memory Will have It to be pure speculation. It was widely reported in Swedish media, but could never be validated. Report gave spatial disorientation as possible cause? (Focusing on the ship for pictures, and missing altitude drop)

 

That can happen real fast at those airspeeds, so I'd bet on that.

[mattebubben]

I found an interesting Chart on the Mirage 2000 Forum (Posted by GGTharos in that thread)

 

It compares Sustained Turn / Thrust to weight of a number of aircraft.

 

Including the AJ 37 Viggen (And since the AJ/AJS are Identical in all ways that matter when it comes to flight performance etc it applies to it aswell)

 

And according to that Chart the AJ 37 has a pretty Good Substained turn rate.

(Not to shabby when compared to some of the other fighters in the chart)

 

And Instantaneous turn rate aught to be very good on the Viggen As Well.

Edited May 3, 2016 by mattebubben

[robban75]

At 7:10 in the video you can see the AJS variant of the Viggen do a max sustained 360 degree turn. The whole display is worth to watch as well. :9

 

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JK3Vx_G2k0[/ame]

[dartuil]

So viggen should be able to sustain a turn like a F-5E?

What about maneuvrability? Same than Mig-21?

[azm]

At 4:50 it`s moving backward, how so?

[JanTelefon]

At 4:50 it`s moving backward, how so?

 

Magic. ;) It's actually three shields deployed behind the engine to direct the jet blast forwards. It allows for Short Take Off and Landing. Needed by the Swedish air force. One of the many cool features of the Viggen.

[Kelevra9987]

At 4:50 it`s moving backward, how so?

 

I think the Viggen has reverse thrust.

[azm]

Magic. ;) It's actually three shields deployed behind the engine to direct the jet blast forwards. It allows for Short Take Off and Landing. Needed by the Swedish air force. One of the many cool features of the Viggen.

Got it, thanks! All clear for short landing but how it helps for short takeoff?

[Dahlbeck]

It doesn't, naturally, but it's usually hard to take off from somewhere without landing there first. ;-)

[JanTelefon]

It's mainly an acronym used I guess. Short Take Off and Landing (STOL). It can land in one direction, reverse and turn around and then take off in the opposite direction. So the take off is almost as short as the landing.

[WinterH]

Short take off is mainly due to big canards with flaps, big wing and powerful engine I guess, obviously, reverse thrust does not contribute to that :)

[Pilum]

I found an interesting Chart on the Mirage 2000 Forum (Posted by GGTharos in that thread)

 

It compares Sustained Turn / Thrust to weight of a number of aircraft.

 

Including the AJ 37 Viggen (And since the AJ/AJS are Identical in all ways that matter when it comes to flight performance etc it applies to it aswell)

 

And according to that Chart the AJ 37 has a pretty Good Substained turn rate.

(Not to shabby when compared to some of the other fighters in the chart)

 

And Instantaneous turn rate aught to be very good on the Viggen As Well.

 

I don’t want to rain on the parade but if Leatherneck are going to deliver a true rendition of the AJS Viggen then those who intend to use that chart for planning how to deal with the other aircraft in the table are most likely going to be very disappointed:

 

 

The Viggen is NOT a good sustained turning fighter (Instantaneous yes, sustained no) and that it should have as good a sustained turning capability as the M-2000 defies logic:

 

 

1) Both planes have about the same span loading, i.e. wingspan/weight

 

2) The M-2000 has a somewhat lower wing loading

 

3) The M-2000 has a much higher thrust to weight ratio

 

4) The Viggen is a very, very stable aircraft and a lot of the weight is carried by the carnard. The M-2000 OTOH has fly by wire relaxed stability which significantly reduces trim drag in turns.

 

 

Now all these things taken together with the laws of aerodynamics and flight mechanics suggest that the M-2000 should make very short work of the Viggen in a sustained turn fight and makes me very suspicious as to the veracity of the table…….

[Justin Case]

...the M-2000 should make very short work of the Viggen in a sustained turn fight

 

And that's not even considering the Viggens fuel consumption in "zone 3" afterburner. :lol:

[mattebubben]

I don’t want to rain on the parade but if Leatherneck are going to deliver a true rendition of the AJS Viggen then those who intend to use that chart for planning how to deal with the other aircraft in the table are most likely going to be very disappointed:

 

 

The Viggen is NOT a good sustained turning fighter (Instantaneous yes, sustained no) and that it should have as good a sustained turning capability as the M-2000 defies logic:

 

 

1) Both planes have about the same span loading, i.e. wingspan/weight

 

2) The M-2000 has a somewhat lower wing loading

 

3) The M-2000 has a much higher thrust to weight ratio

 

4) The Viggen is a very, very stable aircraft and a lot of the weight is carried by the carnard. The M-2000 OTOH has fly by wire relaxed stability which significantly reduces trim drag in turns.

 

 

Now all these things taken together with the laws of aerodynamics and flight mechanics suggest that the M-2000 should make very short work of the Viggen in a sustained turn fight and makes me very suspicious as to the veracity of the table…….

 

I just reported it as i saw it i cant say either way how accurate the chart is.

 

And im also not sure if its correct that The AJ 37 is that close to the M-2000 in terms of Substained turn.

 

But also to take into account is even if the Viggen would have a Comparable Substained Turn rate (if the chart is anywhere accurate) then the viggen most certainly bleed speed at a much higher rate then the mirage 2000 while doing those maneuvers.

 

 

But as already stated i simply saw the chart thought it was interesting and posted it here i cant confirm or deny if its accurate.

 

And until someone posts more charts of the Viggens flight / Turning performance it would be hard to say either way (Until the module comes out atleast)

 

But the Viggen does have a better Substained Turn rate then you might think.

 

Yes its not in the league of the F-15/F-16 or Su-27 / Mig-29

 

But its most certainly not a slouch when it comes to maneuvering.

Especially when compared to older aircraft.

Edited May 6, 2016 by mattebubben