EmgyRegarding spare parts supply, SAAB had lines open for the JA model until 1990, 3 years before rolling out the first production model JAS 39.
(The ever excellent air vector site, http://www.vectorsite.net/avvig.html#m5)
EmgyNot what you’re looking for, but seems like a good opportunity to post an unusual paintjob on a Saab jet;
Viggen in “Darth Wader” livery. Different angle: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0720651/L/
EmgyI would think the landing gears would be more or less good to go. The ones on the Viggen were very robust. The engine was also designed for short take-off to begin with. The HUD has aids for steep landing angle even.
To illustrate this post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxkQ-X92vbs (Or http://www.damir.co.uk/aviation/videos/waddington-2000.htm)
Some relevant bits from Urban/griffon’s aviation site; (Just adding numbers to what Multirole already said.)
“Landing distance is reduced by several means: The HUD is used as a precision landing aid, making it possible to aim just 30 m in from the threshold; The landing gear thinks a landing sink rate of 5 m/s is normal, so landings are done without any flare.”
Slightly off-topic, that site also reveals that the Olympus 22R has an official Swedish designation in the RM-series because it was the initially planned engine for the Viggen, before turbofans came along. Late marks of the Avon sitting in the J 35 is the RM6, the 37’s engine is the RM8 and the Olympus is the missing link.
EmgyIf Sweden was under imminent threat of invasion and occupation by the Soviets, I have little doubt that Reagan would have given the Swedes some B61s.
As you probably know there was already an arrangement of sorts for this from 1960 and on, in the form of Polaris-equipped subs right off the western coast of Sweden, protected from Soviet ASW assets by Swedish forces. (IIRC at least one Soviet SSK heading towards the southern tip of Sweden was hit by depth charges and forced to head home in the 80’s.) With a cooperation on nuclear assets already in place, what you say makes sense.
By the by, wasn’t the Swedish nuke bomber canceled when the early Viggen studies showed that the new plane would be able to reach Murmansk and Leningrad? (This would before the non-proliferation treaty in 68.)
Emgyhttp://frenchnavy.free.fr/projects/jaguar/jaguar_fr.htm has some nice pictures of the Jaguar in Marine colours doing carrier landings, as well as some basic specs, and is in general always a good source for the subject.
Although a Babelfish translation will always be lacking, the text seems to indicate that the carrier modification programme was running and in good health, with changes to the engine control among other things, when the French government cancelled the programme. I hope a French poster will see this thread and have some information on why the programme was cancelled, if anyone is critical of faults with domestic military producs it’s the French.
Regarding replacing the Crusader, I’m not sure a Jaguar with an AA-radar would be a better interceptor than the F-8E(FN) which did use the SARH R.530.
EmgyImagine a future war of attrition – India needs lots of aircraft very fast and foreign deliveries will be too slow, and/or the supply routes will be blocked.
Now having the infrastructure in place for armored vehicles, warships and fighters means that when you shift your economy into war mode, you can begin to churn out that war material very fast. The future iteration of the LCA in this imaginary conflict might not be a state of the art fighter, but it will probably be much better than having nothing.
For that matter, imagine Soviet going into WWII without any previously established aircraft industry. Those 36000 Sturmoviks, 40000 Po-2 etc wouldn’t have been around if there hadn’t been a pre-war aircraft industry.
EmgyBecause India would be better served with fewer types and a more capable design than the LCA. Also, in the modern age point defense interceptors are of little use. As surface to air missiles ofter a quicker reaction times and a level of saturation not possible with any fighter.
The technical limitations of the type matter less to the long-term strategical goal of being able to produce your own aircraft and not be dependant on the goodwill of foreign nations. Same reason Sweden decided to start up their own aircraft industry, (because a signed fighter order was withheld from delivery at the start of WWII) same reason China is on the same road so they don’t have to be dependant on Russia for air superiority fighters, same reason Taiwan made the Ching-kuo and so on.
EmgyI think people fail to realize the true value of the LCA program to India. It more then just the plane, its the infrastucture and design experience that matter just as much.
Strangely enough, this point is consistently overseen. There is no doubt that India wants to build up the capability to independently build and support fighters and I fail to see how cancelling the LCA is going to help that. You need to take some baby steps when you start up and baby steps will be slow in this industry.
I don’t see how the strategical value of this can be questioned either, just look at all the previous examples of air fleets being grounded or withheld from delivery due to embargo. If the LCA can be manufactured without any foreign help, they can at least be guaranteed to have a replenishable supply of point interceptors.
EmgyThere’s no tradition for that when it comes to RN carriers. Re-using the old carrier names would be preferable in my opinion, Hermes, Ark Royal, Eagle and so on.
Overall you’re seeing PR departments hijacking warship naming. Look up the name of the first LCS, the history of the name (a WWI cargo ship and a sailing ship for training purposes) tells me that the USN does not want that name on the warship if they would be allowed to make the choice.
EmgyI’m not familiar with the person but a quick check on wikipedia says he was wounded in WWI at Verdun and taken prisoner at that battle, later he was a foreign volunteer during the Soviet-Polish war during 1919-21 and received a Polish medal for that. Commanded a tank unit as a Colonel in WWII prior to the FFF efforts, where he became the statesman you talk of.
On the topic, I personally prefer ship classes that are geographically named, Virginia, Midway, Sheffield, New York class etc, as they represent a communion of people pulling together rather than the idea of one man sacrificing more than others. Is the dirty boiler room worker (often first to drown) any less a hero than the Captain on the bridge? The duffel-clad Oerlikon gunner less a hero than the striped Gunnery Officer in charge of the 8″ batteries?
EmgyThere’s a bit in International Air Power Review Volume 14 about short landing in a Viggen – Steep approach, then the moment the mainwheel;s touch push stick forward to plant the nosehweel down. This activates the reverse thrust. Then pull stick back so that the aircraft doesn’t go too far forward on to nose. Pull up in 400 to 450 meteres even on snow. That must be quite a sight to see.
(as an aside, Tornado also has a pre-armed reverse thrust capability)
Replying to an old post, but the thread is up again and in the case of anyone interested, here’s a vid of the plane at Waddington in 2000 doing a short landing, u-turning while reversing and taking off using the same tarmac.
EmgyI agree with you that it sounds unlikely.
But if we suppose article is accurate, there could be a reason for going for ASRAAM. According to MBDA’s site, they don’t have the MICA-IR in service yet.
The ASRAAM is more mature since it’s been in service with the RAAF since, what, 1999? While the MICA missile is mature, the MICA-IR seeker head and software is still “young” compared to ASRAAM.
If the article is accurate, it could be they want a more mature system.
EmgyIf they don’t buy American jets, I hope they just buy all MiG 35s. Go French only if they scuttle plans to sell Marlins to Pak or Raffles to China.
So Pakistan gets F-16s with AIM-120C-5 from the US and buys Marlin SSKs from the French. Yet you say you should “punish” the French, but not the US, for selling hardware to Pakistan?
If you want to hold grudges about who sells to who, then the UK shouldn’t buy US hardware because of the Falklands. The Turks and Greeks were dogfighting each other with F-102, F-5, F-16… should both of them stop buying from the US?
For the moment just let’s forget about the politics! India has two major threats one from Pakistan and the other from China. Both have started to field very advance types of fighters.
But you can’t forget about politics in this matter when you see that Pakistan’s new advanced fighters come from the US.
Does the fact that Russia is selling hardware to China mean that India would shift purchases from Russia to the US? Considering that at the same time, the US is selling/donating hardware to Pakistan?
How can you forget politics when politics result in a product that might not work? Pakistan, officially an important non-NATO ally to the US, received F-16s with EW systems can be ignored by US forces, and presumably any US-backed forces. Can India count on their radars and EW systems working in a future conflict with Pakistan backed by a hypothetical pro-Pakistan US administration? For that matter, can Pakistan count on their F-16s working in a conflict vs India backed by a hypothetical pro-Indian US government?
I have to wonder if a future encounter between Pakistan F-16s and Indian F/A-18s results in a WVR fight because their radars and EW won’t work against each other.
EmgyA $ 6-10 billion order can open many doors. Add to that all other juicy contracts, possibilities are endless.
The potential UK buy of ~150 JSF added with the development money they put in will amount to more than any order for 126 SH, and they still have to argue about being able to service and operate their aircraft on their own without periodically sending the planes to a LM centre located in the US.
Scooter, yes I’m sure it’s in the interest of the US government to have closer ties with India, but are you sure that’s enough to clear the export of a fully functional Block 2 Super Hornet, with the necessary tech transfer?
EmgyIndia with their record of tech transfer deals and in some cases license manufacturing, looks to my eyes incompatible with Boeing or LM who seem to be reluctant to let their buyers be able to even service advanced aircraft on their own? (Ie JSF and the UK.)
Would India be cleared for fully autonomous serviceing and operation of a completely decked out F/A-18E with the latest AESA, AIM-120C-5 etc?
Sign In
