Thrust Reverser vs Drag Chute

But not as intelligent as buying a proven design off the peg. Let's face it, the SAAB aircraft program was just a political gesture to ensure people were employed in Sweden. The fact that not a single export was made of any of the SAAB designs says it all. Nice designs, but economical?

What other design could do what the Viggen did in the 60ies and 70ies that could've been bought by Sweden?

Sweden learned that it must have a domestic fighter production if it would be able to defend itself, being a independent state, when the US confiscated fighters destined for Sweden during WWII.

Swedish weapon export laws are funny... We are not allowed to export weapons to countries that may use them in a war. I kid you not! That kind of limited the number of prospective buyers :)

I've seen some great info, documents, documentaries on how Britain had some great designs, even some wonderful prototype aircraft in the pipeline in the 60s (not going into names here) but political pressure from their Allies almost completely demolished their fighter aircraft industry, leaving them practically at the mercy of having no choice but to buy only what their Allies had to sell to them. They weren't the only ones either.

Not only was it great for Sweden and SAAB to produce their aircraft I don't see how their industry could have survived to this day if they didn't do so.

As for export sales guaranteeing quality See: F104 Starfighter.

I've seen some great info, documents, documentaries on how Britain had some great designs, even some wonderful prototype aircraft in the pipeline in the 60s (not going into names here) but political pressure from their Allies almost completely demolished their fighter aircraft industry, leaving them practically at the mercy of having no choice but to buy only what their Allies had to sell to them. They weren't the only ones either...

Exactly. As an example...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow

Exactly. As an example...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow

Political pressure? Perhaps some, but more likely it was that developing such advanced aircraft was deemed too expensive for both UK and Canada at a time when SAM missiles seemed like a better (and cheaper) alternative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957_Defence_White_Paper

The reverse thrust is fancy and useful feature, but I wouldn't take it as so superior to landing shortening.

As there are other ways to do same like a same method as carriers catches aircrafts with cables if the aircraft supports it. And instead running out from deck, on road you have longer distance to smoothly slow down with them. And it as well puts less wear to cables as does to aircraft hook. This if really wanted ie stop in 200-300m distance even.

Arrestor cables on roads would be impractical. As the tactic was to move from road to road in a war scenario. You would have to have the system ready before Viggen can land, setting up such a system is complicated & takes time. What if the system is not set up for some reason? & Viggen is low on fuel & has to land?....kaboom bye bye Viggen :music_whistling:.

However I'm sure the cables & drag chute & other "fancy stuff" were considered by SAAB designers, but found inadequate. After-all they designed the 1st flight computer, TERR Nav & Hud.

Much safer to have the trust-reverser on the Viggen, that way the pilot can land on whatever road he chooses, weather the ground crew is there or not, or in an emergency, or for cover.

The whole filosofi of Viggen was that it had to bee as mush independent & self sustained as possible ie. no external nav aids, 3 ground crew required for rearm/refuel, fast hideaway on road bases.

Show me an airplane of it's era that can:

Take-off with Max TOW in 500m. Land with Max LDW <400m. ???

And do it consistently, mission after mission :smilewink:.

Drag chute really ain't a fancy thing but well working system.

The arrestor cables i mentioned are the fancy thing, of you didn't get it ;-)

The reverse thrust system real benefit is that pilot can land and take off independently if ie needed to wait few hours somewhere in safe, instead flying around and be ready to quickly take off etc.

Swedish didn't invent roadstrips or the operations from them etc. It just is their doctrine like Soviets and British.

Arrestor cables on roads would be impractical. As the tactic was to move from road to road in a war scenario. You would have to have the system ready before Viggen can land, setting up such a system is complicated & takes time. What if the system is not set up for some reason? & Viggen is low on fuel & has to land?....kaboom bye bye Viggen :music_whistling:.

However I'm sure the cables & drag chute & other "fancy stuff" were considered by SAAB designers, but found inadequate. After-all they designed the 1st flight computer, TERR Nav & Hud.

 

Much safer to have the trust-reverser on the Viggen, that way the pilot can land on whatever road he chooses, weather the ground crew is there or not, or in an emergency, or for cover.

The whole filosofi of Viggen was that it had to bee as mush independent & self sustained as possible ie. no external nav aids, 3 ground crew required for rearm/refuel, fast hideaway on road bases.

 

Show me an airplane of it's era that can:

Take-off with Max TOW in 500m. Land with Max LDW <400m. ???

And do it consistently, mission after mission :smilewink:.

I think there is a little misconception about the Swedish doctrine of dispersal bases. These road bases were not just at random pieces of road, but small airbases that were purposely build into the road network, complete with the necessary infrastructure. I am quite sure that the Soviets had mapped out every single existing road base. The advantage was that they could not be sure which base was occupied and which was empty.

There were backup strips, though. That is, stretches of roads that were not normally used as airfields in peacetime, but could easily be converted to runways if needed (usually by some modest field work like cutting down trees on the approach and such things).

Drag Chute's Drag is Linear to the Aircraft's Speed, below a certain speed, they are useless.

Actually the rule of thumb is that the force of drag is proportional to velocity squared, but yes, they get inefficient at low speeds. They also have to be replenished before the plane is fit to go on another sortie.

This means that both the canards and the main wing produce lift.

A conventional tail design, the horizontal stabilizer needs to produce a downforce, to counteract the pitch up moment of the main wing. This downforce acts in the same direction as weight and needs to be counteracted by increasing lift. Increasing lift means increasing induced drag.

A canard can be a more efficient design, compared to conventional tail designs.

This is only true if the design is inherently stable.

Apart from GA, most planes are desiged aerodynamically unstable or at least with relaxed stability exactly for this reason. Canards are just another way to reduce stability on a plane.

The Viggen is an interdictor, in this airframe mass is the benefit.. it adds to what you want the airframe to do. If you want to fly very low and very fast then mass and inertia are your friends. The more weight you have the more stable and solid the airframe is at low level dynamic weather conditions.

Originally I believed only one true interdictor existed, the Tornado.

Now I know there was another, the Viggen, I never knew I needed her but DCS has shown me other wise.

Both have the same theory behind them,

Both are solid heavy low level true to blue interdictors!

The fact that she stops quickly on a run way is a bonus that the designers spent months if not years contemplating.

Lightweight is just for pussies!

I do hope there is a ruskie airframe that is equivalent.

I do hope there is a ruskie airframe that is equivalent.

su-7/17/22 is more or less what you're looking for.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=121223

su-7/17/22 is more or less what you're looking for.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=121223

Not convinced, ground attack for sure..... precision decapitation in an age of dumb iron & explosives I am not so sure.... perhaps with luck.

This is only true if the design is inherently stable.

Yes, that's true. The Viggen is. :)

Canards are just another way to reduce stability on a plane.

It can be a way to relax the stability, yes. But you can also have a relaxed or even unstable configuration with a conventional aft horizontal stabilizer.

Canards are just another way to reduce stability on a plane.

That's a gross oversimplification, especially in the Viggen's case. The canards do help with balancing out the longitudinal stability so the plane isn't overly stable (= overly heavy on the pitch controls), but their size and position also contribute significantly to avoiding local instability at certain angles of attack.

The vertical axis marked Cm in these graphs below is the pitching moment; as long as it is negative with increasing angles of attack the plane is statically stable longitudinally.

For further details please refer to the aerodynamics compendium, again. Part 2 deals with stability; starts at page 41 in the PDF.

Chaps, she is a low level interdictor.

If you think air superiority, you will never understand her purpose.

If you think warfare for the last 30 years you will never understand the interdictor design.

You gotta think in terms of an older more desperate time..... you gotta think of the future.

Chaps, she is a low level interdictor.

If you think air superiority, you will never understand her purpose.

If you think warfare for the last 30 years you will never understand the interdictor design.

You gotta think in terms of an older more desperate time..... you gotta think of the future.

In another thread someone was complaining about the 104th Red Flag event and how hard it was to get the very slow a10c into the fight. All I could think of was how much better the Viggen would be in the Red Flag events. You don't need CAS- you aren't protecting your advancing forces. You need speed and a quick strike... I couldn't think of a more well suited plane for this mission.

TJ

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not convinced, ground attack for sure..... precision decapitation in an age of dumb iron & explosives I am not so sure.... perhaps with luck.

praytell how a viggen is any more precise in interdiction with araks and sb71s than a su-17 with s-13s and fabs? su-17m2 has a laser/eo unit and hardly makes it uncompetitive compared to ghetto maverick eo.

praytell how a viggen is any more precise in interdiction with araks and sb71s than a su-17 with s-13s and fabs? su-17m2 has a laser/eo unit and hardly makes it uncompetitive compared to ghetto maverick eo.

BK90! Make a waypoint on the targets you pick up with the radar and BOOM!

BK90! Make a waypoint on the targets you pick up with the radar and BOOM!

Okay, this is little off-topic but how are you going to get so accurate waypoint added on radar screen compared to EO systems or HUD?

The viggen really needs recon data from ground crew or input it via radio communication from someone finding it first. So quickly able to land, pick data cartridge and take-off is important feature.

This is why Mavericks are so important in viggen as it gives the fast and accurate strike capability.

Okay, this is little off-topic but how are you going to get so accurate waypoint added on radar screen compared to EO systems or HUD?

 

The viggen really needs recon data from ground crew or input it via radio communication from someone finding it first. So quickly able to land, pick data cartridge and take-off is important feature.

 

This is why Mavericks are so important in viggen as it gives the fast and accurate strike capability.

Firing 2 BK90s at the time with the wide spread setting makes it cover a pretty big area. And if you make the waypoint in the 15km radar range, it will be really accurate with a little practice.