DCS: AJS-37 Viggen Discussion

[mattebubben]

Comparing Swedish fighters/strikers to NATO equivalents

Out of curiousity -- how do the Lansen and Draken, at their respective heights of service, compare to other aircraft? Can we make rough comparisons to F-86, Starfighter, Thunderchief or first F-4 when it comes to radar? The Viggen has a lot of unique whistles, not to mention firsts, but I've mentally placed it (or rather the several versions) approximately in the category of the F-16A.

 

If we start with the Viggen.

 

The Viggen has multiple variants with the two main variants being the AJ 37 (early strike variant) and JA 37 (later fighter variant)

and they later had some upgrades over time which turned the AJ 37 into the AJS 37 that we are getting.

 

But tech wise the two are very different.

 

The AJ 37 is a early 1970s aircraft and as such should be seen as an earlier generation of aircraft then the F-16.

 

While it might have been the highest level tech that generation had to offer it was still an earlier design.

 

But in terms of air-ground duties etc the AJ 37 and F-16A are pretty comparable since the F-16A does not have a targeting pod or many guided munitions etc so they are pretty comparable in their air-ground capabilities even if the AJ 37 is using an older level of tech (as it entered service in 1971 where as the F-16A entered service in 1979-1980)

 

the JA 37 on the other hand uses comparable tech to that of the F-16A and C (superior to that of the A comparable to the C)

and it kept up with the C blocks through it lifetimes with upgrades that kept it comparable in most areas and better in some even when compared to later F-16Cs like the Block 50/52.

 

The J35 Draken is a 1960s fighter interceptor and the Swedish variant had no real air-ground capabilities

(could use guns and air-air rockets against ground targets sure but that was never a mission for it)

 

In air-air capabilities its pretty comparable to other aircraft of the time like the Mirage III,F-104 and Mig-21.

 

And again there are multiple different J35 variants so it depends which one you are comparing with what variant of the corresponding aircraft but if we compare them by service they are pretty similar performance / tech wise.

 

The Saab 32 Lansen is a two seater mid-late 50s aircraft with both an attack variant and a fighter variant (as well as a recce variant like all Saab Jet aircraft)

 

With the two variants having different capabilities.

 

Its Transonic jet so its capable of speeds just below that of mach 1

(in level flight can easily reach mach 1 in a shallow dive)

 

The attack variant was equipped with Rockets,Unguided bombs and Anti-ship missiles (as well as internal guns) where as the fighter variant was able to carry Aim-9Bs (RB 24) and air-air rockets.

 

Its a bit harder to compare the lansen since while the fighter variant is comparable with aircraft like the Hawker Hunter (though being faster,larger and heavier etc) the Attack variant is a bit more unique with its Radar guided Anti-Ship missiles etc.

 

Also an interesting thing to not about the A 32 lansen.

 

In order to save money etc not all A 32s were equipped with air-ground search radars (that were used to find ships) but generally only the flight leader (1 in 4) had an aircraft with the search radar.

 

So he would be the one using his radar to get through terrain and to search for targets where as the rest of the flight would simply follow and launch their anti ship missiles on his mark.

(especially in bad visibility etc)

 

And thats one of the things pilots likes with the AJ 37 in that everybody had their own so they were alot less reliant on each other

 

(since in the A32 if either you lost contact with the leader you were suddenly blind as you had no air-ground radar your self or if the Radar equipped aircraft broke down it could ground the entire flight as they would have no search radar thus limiting them to only good weather flying).

[mattebubben]

I can't say for sure about the AJ and AJS but I know the last iterations of JA 37 (fighter variant) was said to be more technically advanced than the currently active JAS 39 GRIPENS (although that was the Gripen A at the time.) :-)

 

I would not say that even the latest JA 37 (JA 37DI) was more advanced then even the early JAS 39As.

 

It was comparable in some areas (such as the datalink and air-air weapons and some computer systems etc)

 

But it was not more advanced in general.

[El Hadji]

The thing that really makes me proud as a Swede is that tiny Sweden could produce aircraft that at least could compete with what NATO and the Warzaw pact came up with. The J29, A/J32, J35 and the Viggen. Then there were the projects that were cancelled... B3LA, B3LM etc.

[MBot]

If we compare the AJ 37 and the F-16A we have to consider that the Viggen is almost a decade older and it shows. The F-16A has a superior radar, both air-air and air-ground. The F-16A, together with the F/A-18A, introduced a new generation of bombing precision that I don't imagine the Viggen could match. As a strike-fighter both aircraft probably have similar performance, though I expect that the F-16A has a vastly superior strike radius. The Osirak Raid really showed that the F-16A is a first-class strike aircraft.

 

Comparing the F-16A with the JA 37 (both aircraft entered service at about the same time) I would rate the Viggen higher due to superior weapons and avionics. In the course of time both the F-16 and and JA 37 were upgraded in similar ways to similar capabilities.

 

Of course in terms of engine, aerodynamics and flight controls the F-16 is a generation ahead.

Edited July 23, 2016 by MBot

[El Hadji]

The F-16 is a light aircraft compared to the Viggen and they were designed to do different things. In a BVR fight Viggen vs Viper, my money would be on the JA37. At close range, in a turn fight, not so much. If there was an attack with evil Norwegian F-16's, the Viggens would scramble, hit at BVR and use their higher top speed at altitude to get away. In waves if needed. That was what the way Viggen was supposed to be used - for homeland defense.

[scaflight]

If there was an attack with evil Norwegian F-16's, the Viggens would scramble, hit at BVR and use their higher top speed at altitude to get away. In waves if needed. That was what the way Viggen was supposed to be used - for homeland defense.

 

After a group discussion about it.

 

[ame]

[/ame]

[RaXha]

DCS: AJS-37 Viggen Discussion

 

I would not say that even the latest JA 37 (JA 37DI) was more advanced then even the early JAS 39As.

 

It was comparable in some areas (such as the datalink and air-air weapons and some computer systems etc)

 

But it was not more advanced in general.

 

 

 

Probably not, but that was the word at the time. ;-) I have an old aircraft maintenance teacher that worked on the JA-37 that always said it was in some ways better than the Gripen since the initial versions of the Gripen had a fairly low payload weight because the wing beams weren't strong enough to carry heavy weaponry, but of course it is also smaller than the Viggen. :-)

[Mjau]

Probably not, but that was the word at the time. ;-) I have an old aircraft maintenance teacher that worked on the JA-37 that always said it was in some ways better than the Gripen since the initial versions of the Gripen had a fairly low payload weight because the wing beams weren't strong enough to carry heavy weaponry, but of course it is also smaller than the Viggen. :-)

 

Viggen could fly faster, higher and carry more weapons than Gripen can. Hence people thought Viggen was better when Gripen entered service.

[RaXha]

Viggen could fly faster, higher and carry more weapons than Gripen can. Hence people thought Viggen was better when Gripen entered service.

 

Yea that makes sense. :-)

[mattebubben]

Much of the same was sometimes said about the F-4E and the F-16A when the F-16 first entered service.

 

Since the F-4 had BVR weapons (that the F-16A lacked early on) could carry a heavier payload and was able to carry targeting pods

(Pave Spike and Pave Tack etc)

letting it self laze.

 

It generally takes some time for a new aircraft to mature and get the needed equipment etc before it starts to reach its full combat potential.

Edited July 23, 2016 by mattebubben

[El Hadji]

Back to the question of minimum altitude for the split-S maneuver mentioned a few pages back when a Viggen met a Sukhoi over the Baltic sea in the 1980's. Just spoke to a former Viggen pilot (he flew JA's) about it. He says that he never would have attempted a split-S below 1000 meters at the speed mentioned. He doubts that it happend the way it was described in the article about the incident. It could probably be done in the "heat of the moment", he says, but no Viggen pilot would have done it deliberately.

[renhanxue]

Comparing Swedish fighters/strikers to NATO equivalents

Out of curiousity -- how do the Lansen and Draken, at their respective heights of service, compare to other aircraft? Can we make rough comparisons to F-86, Starfighter, Thunderchief or first F-4 when it comes to radar? The Viggen has a lot of unique whistles, not to mention firsts, but I've mentally placed it (or rather the several versions) approximately in the category of the F-16A.

People love to compare fighters and other military hardware, and I've certainly gotten in on the fun myself on occasion. I don't want to get into that kind of discussion without a caveat, though: ultimately, such comparisons just aren't very meaningful in the real world. Individual fighter performance matters a lot in very small engagements with only a few aircraft on each side, but in a bigger near-peer conflict with a ton of aircraft involved, a fighter of one particular "generation" (don't like that word either) is about equal to any other fighter of that "generation", and other, strategic level factors are going to be more important.

 

In the end, what matters most is having local superiority at the right place at the right time, and you get that by having such boring things as good intelligence, good logistics, good aircraft availability, good command & control, good average training levels among your pilots etc etc. Having a better fighter that can win even when slightly outnumbered still helps, of course, but it's definitely not all-important. People just focus on it because fighter jets are really cool and logistics isn't. The reason the US tends to completely dominate all aerial conflicts it gets itself into is because it is superior in all these strategic areas (just having AWACS and aerial refueling is an incredible luxury few nations can afford), not because it has the F-15.

 

You also have to consider that all air forces design or attempt to procure aircraft that suit their doctrine, or if that isn't possible, they adapt their doctrine to suit their aircraft.

 

tl;dr: I believe fighter aircraft aren't as much "better" as they are different.

 

 

With all that out of the way... the later 60's marks of the Draken (J 35D and J 35F) are definitely comparable to other interceptors of the era, like mattebubben mentioned. In terms of pure aerodynamic performance it was nothing special, it had its strengths and weaknesses just like the others. Not as fast as the Starfighter, rolled better than the MiG-21, etc etc.

 

Just like the others it relied heavily on ground-controlled intercepts, but what set it apart was the ground-to-air datalink which I don't think any other aircraft of the era used to anywhere near the same extent. In a J 35B cockpit (as well as in later Swedish Draken versions) there are two vertical instruments to the right of the radar named AVST (distance) and HÖJD (altitude) as well as a compass-like instrument below - an intercept controller on the ground could, without speaking a word on the radio, instantly tell the pilot where his target was, in addition to sending one of about a dozen pre-defined messages (like "new target", "abort and RTB", "climb" etc), using a narrow-band tone signalling system. How much does that matter in a real situation? It's impossible to say, it was never tried. It definitely made the Drakens more resistant to radio jamming, but how much that would've been used by the Soviets is beyond my knowledge.

 

There's an Australian evaluation of the J 35B available online via the Australian national archives, check here if you're interested (jump to page 74 for the start of the Draken documents, page 87 if you want to get into the test pilot reports). In the same file there's also an evaluation of the Mirage III with the same test pilot so you can compare them directly.

 

 

As far as the A 32 Lansen goes, I think the closest equivalent is probably the A-4 Skyhawk. Nobody else in the west used radar-guided aircraft-launched ASM's in the 1950's as far as I know though so it's kinda hard to compare that, but at least as far as bombs go they were similar. The Lansen never got the capability to carry Mavericks and such things though, it was dumb bombs/rockets and the rb 04 and that was it.

 

 

The AJ 37 in its original incarnation was, simply put, unique. There are no direct equivalents anywhere. It was designed around the anti-ship role plus the short-field requirement, and no other air force had similar requirements in the 1960's. The closest you get in role I think is the Super Étendard, but that was introduced in service in the late 1970's and I don't know a lot about it. As far as the avionics go, I think it is kinda comparable to the original F-14 with its mix of digital and analog systems, but again the AJ 37 had a completely different purpose.

 

The JA 37 has (almost) the equivalent of the F-15C's avionics in a less aerodynamically capable airframe with a smaller radar, plus again the unique Swedish focus on datalinks - I don't think there was anything quite like the Swedish mid-80's fighter-to-fighter datalink in any other aircraft in the world before the F-22 entered the scene.

 

The thing that really makes me proud as a Swede is that tiny Sweden could produce aircraft that at least could compete with what NATO and the Warzaw pact came up with. The J29, A/J32, J35 and the Viggen. Then there were the projects that were cancelled... B3LA, B3LM etc.

 

While I agree that it's remarkable how Sweden can win the first prize in any category of "fighter jets produced/designed per capita", I think there's another thing that's even more remarkable. After the embarrassing J 21R, Saab has never had a failed project, and never produced a jet that was kind of a "dog". Sure, there's been paper projects like the B3LA, but nothing that made it all that far. What we have succeeded at better than anyone else is deciding on exactly what we want (even when that is nothing like what anyone else wants), setting the bar high but only just high enough to still make it achievable (letting engineers adjust it up or down where needed) and then having the guts and political determination to pull through. Not only that, but also the good sense to see what wouldn't work and abandoning it in time. We could have jumped on the hype train in the 1960's and made the Viggen VTOL, or swing wing - the options were studied, and rejected as too limiting, too expensive and too complex. In retrospect, I think it was the correct decision.

 

Look at the Americans and their dozens of failed and cancelled projects, look at the Brits and the TSR2, look at the French and their weirdo VTOL Mirage IIIV, at the Canadians and the Arrow. Look at the all the different interests pulling the Eurofighter in different directions raising costs to astonishing heights, look at the Super Hornet which was plan B for the plan B; an aircraft that nobody really wanted. We have never been there, and that is truly remarkable.

 

Good project management is very hard, and an underrated skill.

Edited July 23, 2016 by renhanxue

[scaflight]

Thanks for the elaborate response, renhanxue.

 

Your initial disclaimer touches on something I wasn't terribly bothered with: the comparison of aircraft as opponents. Whenever the question of "is X like Y" raised, there's always an implicit or explicit question of quality there, of which aircraft will destroy another and thus emerge victorious, or 'better'. I wasn't really interested in that, but you still pointed out the minefield, and I acknowledge that. :) As some DCS forum threads prove, the chauvinism of some users very quickly erodes what could be helpful analyses.

 

As such, I have to believe there are sound and analytical ways to generalize and compare combat aircraft without bothering at all with which destroys which. Typical ones that we DCS pilots deal directly with, such as maneuverability, payload etc, but also things that real air forces are likely to pay attention to: maintenance requirements, ease of operating at low speeds/takeoff/landing. Thank you for sharing a document that touched on some of those.

[renhanxue]

As far as the J 35 goes I can contribute at least one other document, namely all four formerly classified parts of the flight manual for the J 35F - the final form of the 60's Drakens, and the only one to have a fully Swedish radar. The radar is described in detail in part 2. If you're familiar with the radar in the MiG-21bis I think that's a fair comparison, but I'm not so I really can't say much. It doesn't have the MiG-21's reliance on cooling medium, at least. For some quick summary points, it can be used to slew the seeker head for the rb 28 (IR-Falcon) and has a max detection range of 40 km (or is it lock range? there's a distance scale switch for it that has two settings, 16 km and 40 km).

 

Really, the main problem with the Draken is that it never really got any good missiles. It was toting around Falcons and the original AIM-9B until 1977. Only then was the rb 24J (close enough to AIM-9J/AIM-9P) introduced, and that was the best weapon available until the aircraft was retired in the 1990's. I think the winner in that department is the MiG-21 with all its upgrades, but the Mirage III isn't far behind.

 

e: at least the Swedish license-produced Falcons had proximity warheads. Praise be unto Kungl. Flygförvaltningen.

 

edit the second: link to SFI didn't work properly, should be fixed now.

Edited July 23, 2016 by renhanxue

[mattebubben]

As far as the J 35 goes I can contribute at least one other document, namely all four formerly classified parts of the flight manual for the J 35F - the final form of the 60's Drakens, and the only one to have a fully Swedish radar. The radar is described in detail in part 2. If you're familiar with the radar in the MiG-21bis I think that's a fair comparison, but I'm not so I really can't say much. It doesn't have the MiG-21's reliance on cooling medium, at least. For some quick summary points, it can be used to slew the seeker head for the rb 28 (IR-Falcon) and has a max detection range of 40 km (or is it lock range? there's a distance scale switch for it that has two settings, 16 km and 40 km).

 

Really, the main problem with the Draken is that it never really got any good missiles. It was toting around Falcons and the original AIM-9B until 1977. Only then was the rb 24J (close enough to AIM-9J/AIM-9P) introduced, and that was the best weapon available until the aircraft was retired in the 1990's. I think the winner in that department is the MiG-21 with all its upgrades, but the Mirage III isn't far behind.

 

e: at least the Swedish license-produced Falcons had proximity warheads. Praise be unto Kungl. Flygförvaltningen.

 

Well the lack of good missiles for the Draken was more the Fault of the Airforce etc then it was the Aircraft itself.

 

And export users would have been able to make their own choices (within reason) since some modifications especially when it came to IR missiles should not have been hard to do.

 

For example the Draken with the best missiles were the J35s exported to Austria that started to be armed with All aspect Aim-9P5s in the early 90s.

 

And also the missiles Sweden had were good enough in the 60s

(since were no other missiles that were allot better around then and no point in getting a missile that was only slightly better since it would itself be outdated just a few years later)

 

It was not really until the early-mid 70s were better missiles started to become available and that point Sweden started looking.

 

And while the RB 24J was not exactly top of the line when it was adopted (as the Aim-9L entered initial service the same year) it was not terrible either.

 

The bigger mistake when it came to the Draken if you ask me is that we never acquired a All aspect missile for it in the 80s or 90s.

 

The best option would probably have been to get a Aim-9P4/5 or a Aim-9Juli in the 80s by both Upgrading the Existing RB24Js to the new standard (by replacing Seeker / Guidance units etc) as well as possible new manufacture.

 

(With the Aim-9Juli being a German Conversion kit where a Aim-9J/N/P series missile was upgraded and equipped with Aim-9L guidance and control assemblies and some other minor changes)

 

And use that missile together with the RB 74.

 

Using the RB 74 (Aim-9L) as the main IR missile for the JA 37 with the slightly less less capable but cheaper all aspect missile being the Standard Air-Air missile for the J35 and AJ 37.

 

That would most likely have been the best Cost/Performance option since it would not have resulted in any waste of existing missiles (as they would be upgraded to the new standard) while at the same time vastly increasing the capabilities.

Edited July 23, 2016 by mattebubben

[BravoYankee4]

As stated already it is really hard to compare our aircrafts with NATO and WP, since they were really specialized for a very narrow usage (doctrine). So from that perspective they where the best in the world, meeting the exact demands of the time for the Swedish armed forces. That is the luxuary you get designing and building your own stuff rather than buy something (even though it might be altered in some extent for each buyer).

The true result we will never get, since there wasn't any full scale conflict during that era, so the full advantages with specialised aircrafts etc was never tested. I'm pretty sure that the datalink would be a huge advantage if ever proven in battle, even though the specifications for the opponent aircraft might have been better on paper and so on.

 

Others might laugh at our desings and concepts afterwards, when extracted from the right context. Another excellent example is the MBT STRV 103, that might seem very odd, but yet again designed exactly for a specific purpose and strategy for the time.

 

http://i57.fastpic.ru/big/2013/1029/0b/b9543b0a700087c7d7b788cbbbca580b.jpg

[El Hadji]

I'm sure the Soviets didn't laugh when the first saw it...

 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

I think he meant that now that the F-5 is out we need a Lansen!

 

 

... yeah sure, this works for me! I'm okay with this. :joystick:

[renhanxue]

The notion that the strv 103 had a role or purpose different from any other tank is a myth. It's extremely widespread to the point that I can't think of any book in which it is debunked, and even Swedish museum curators and other people who are extremely knowledgeable about the tank don't seem to care enough to attempt to debunk it (probably because it requires a pretty long military nerd explanation that will get people's eyes to gloss over), but it's still a myth. I've written my own attempt at a debunking essay if you care enough to read a few thousand words about the thing.

 

Also, I'm going to go experience nature and stuff for the next two weeks or so. Don't you dare release the AJS 37 before I'm back, ya hear me Leatherneck?

 

(i'm trying reverse psychology here ok)

[Cobra847]

Having just seen the Lansen for the first time in real life the other day. It's a surprisingly large aircraft!

[Rammit]

Just went up on their facebook page:

 

https://www.facebook.com/leathernecksim/photos/a.1590858094470196.1073741828.1586481878241151/1754250394797631/?type=3&theater

[microvax]

Just went up on their facebook page:

 

https://www.facebook.com/leathernecksim/photos/a.1590858094470196.1073741828.1586481878241151/1754250394797631/?type=3&theater

 

Viggens are scrambled. :D

[RaXha]

Omg don't do this to us Cobra! XD

[El Hadji]

Having just seen the Lansen for the first time in real life the other day. It's a surprisingly large aircraft!

 

Yes it is pretty impressive!

 

[RaXha]

Dear All,

 

First of all- thank you all for your patience in the past year.

Unfortunately plans don't always work out, and we're working very hard to remedy the situation as quickly as possible.

 

Here's a very quick summary of what we're working on and where we stand!

 

AJS-37 Viggen

 

We're all fairly quiet and keeping our heads low- as we're still very much knee deep in the AJS-37 completion crunch. Most of the current work is focused on a few critical areas:

 

• Correction of erroneous artwork
  
  
• Fixing of a few hundred bugs, including some critical
  
  
• Completion of ground mapping radar shader & visuals (Performance!)
  
  
• Campaign & Mission completion. (1 Mini Campaign, 1 Major Campaign & Training suite)
  
  
• Marketing materials, music licensing, livestream planning
  
  
• Expansion of the LN Site (including Merchandise- and MiG-21 rewards)
  
  
• New Theatres
  
  

 

The past few weeks have seen the completion of the last research trips conducted with real Viggens. Again, we visited the JA-37Di at Graz-Thalerhof to be able to remedy some of the erroneously constructed artwork. (Canopies are a PITA!). We're very grateful to all of the museums around Europe, which have graciously afforded us the ability to crawl all over their aircraft in search for complete accuracy!

 

The Viggen has been a very challenging project for us, both in size and complexity- but primarily in the new features that will be introduced with the aircraft. Our own, custom ground mapping radar has been a point of very difficult development- but we sincerely hope that the end result will be stunning in every way.

 

It all sounds, in writing, a little more pessimistic than it really should. We're getting there.

 

We're inching closer guys! :D