Now look what you've gone and made me do:

We likes! 

Quote from: Pellson on October 06, 2024, 01:41:12 PM

Quote from: Gondor on October 06, 2024, 01:26:48 PM

Quote from: Pellson on October 06, 2024, 01:20:18 PMHaving tried different pylon and missile setups, I'm currently leaning towards a 2 x Skyflash + 2 x Sidewinder load, the former under the outer wings and the latter under the intakes as per the J35J. The Skyflashes are obviously bigger and above all longer than the Falcons the later Draken did carry, but it's not looking totally out of place, and it will be possible to work them in into my kind of backstory. As you might have noticed, I like to keep things at least almost within the reach of a possible reality, and that can be a very narrow path to wander.

So a pair of Rb 71's along with a pair of RB24J's as your loadout, very reasonable I think.

Gondor

Aye, mate. That's what we're looking at, currently. 

EDIT: Almost. I'll go for the Rb74/AIM-9L instead of the Rb24J. These are within reach, chronologically, and a much, much better missile.

If it were me I'd be tempted to get or fabricate some LAU-105 launchers and give this thing four Rb74s/AIM-9Ls in addition to a pair of Skyflashes.  Looking great so far.  That Draken with Gripen wings looks really nice too, give it some AMRAAMs or something 

Right.

Back home again, and even if there's loads of work to care for professionally, I'm as usual conducting "aerodynamic studies"^* on some more or less completed models while being caught up in Teams meetings. One of those study subjects is the complete but unpainted J35A, which has brought me to thinking about the scheme. Should one go late J35J grey over grey scheme, optimised for low to medium level air combat, or should one rather stay with the more JMN original Draken camouflage - which in all fairness is a more colourful and pretty scheme than the later J35J air superiority scheme? Well, that depends, methinks, on time frame.

Any Draken up to 1989 would be dark and murky on top, and medium bluegrey underneath. However, in the late 1980's, as the fighter Viggens became grey, the sole remaining J35 wing, the F10, also tried out a grey air superiority scheme on their J35J's, and from ca 1990, all single seat Drakens were grey. However, while the J35J's as well as the JA37's stuck to their hi-vis national insignia until replaced, the new JAS39A's already in 1996 tried toned down blue and yellow insignia as well as entirely greyed out ones, standardising on the latter. (At the same time, stencilling was minimised, as that was seen as peacetime H&S stuff rather than applicable for war).

You cannot view this attachment.
Awful photo from a book showing the RAF-style toned down insignia trialled for a short period on 39801, autumn 1996

Anyway - from the above follows that an early Draken could very theoretically have been kept in the old colours for money saving reasons, but most likely, it would at least have turned grey towards the end of it's service (given that I've set 1998 as out-of-service date in my backstory above). Under the same auspices, one would have expected the insignia to stay hi-vis, but one could suggest some minimalisation of stencilling on a grey machine. One could, actually, even consider a toned-down but still coloured insignia as per the trials Gripen For a wartime, or even high readiness scenario, I would have expected no hi-vis individual nos, or similar, rather reverting to yellow on the old dark scheme or black on the newer grey.

Right (again). Having now set this out to myself, I shall now continue my aerodynamic studies, mulling on the above.. 

*) Those who know, know.. 

Honestly I like both, though the older scheme might look better on the Draken.  Grey would be interesting though.

Quote from: Spino on October 14, 2024, 10:16:54 AMHonestly I like both, though the older scheme might look better on the Draken.  Grey would be interesting though.

You cannot view this attachment.

Since you obviously have nothing better to do than wait for Teams to reconnect yet again, might they ever have done a Draken in the Viggen multi-green splinter scheme? 

Oh dear, serves me right. Immediately after posting a demonic suggestion, my mind drifted off to a place where a 1:32 scale Draken is rendered as a 1:72 scale dual-cycle hybrid turbo-ramjet powered attack bomber (embiggened version of the SR-71's magnificent burner thingies). I can see it crystal clear in my mind's eye, all those acres of grubby riveted titanium and gaping jetpipe. Is there no peace for the wicked?

Quote from: steelpillow on October 14, 2024, 12:16:22 PMSince you obviously have nothing better to do than wait for Teams to reconnect yet again, might they ever have done a Draken in the Viggen multi-green splinter scheme? 

Do be my guest.. 

You cannot view this attachment.

Always liked that multi green splinter scheme 

Could not resist to post mine - using the "real" Fields & Meadows pattern from above (had found a full 3-side overview as reference!) on a whiffy attack Draken:


1:72 Saab A 35 G "Draken"; aircraft "02 Red" of the Svenska Flygvapnet (Swedish Air Force) Västgöta Wing (F 6); Karlsborg Air Base, 1974 (Whif/modified Revell/Mistercraft kit) by Dizzyfugu, on Flickr


1:72 Saab A 35 G "Draken"; aircraft "02 Red" of the Svenska Flygvapnet (Swedish Air Force) Västgöta Wing (F 6); Karlsborg Air Base, 1974 (Whif/modified Revell/Mistercraft kit) by Dizzyfugu, on Flickr

Not too far off... 

    

Quote from: steelpillow on October 07, 2024, 11:06:07 AMNow look what you've gone and made me do:

OK this thread is having the same affect on me too Steel mate..your design combined with the warped thoughts I'm having are leading me down path to slight ruin 😅
Pellson made for something that old your doing very nice work indeed 😁

Quote from: Pellson on October 05, 2024, 01:14:58 PMMissile upgrade considerations:
At the end of their career, the J35J featured an upgraded PS-01 radar, the PS-011/A. Basically the same unit, but with significantly better resistance against jamming. The radar was still coupled to the somewhat limited Rb27/AIM-26B Falcon missile. However, the Swedish version was actually upgraded a bit, featuring better ECM resistance (again), and perhaps most revolutionary - a proximity fuse. That meant you could actually hope to hit something when firing it, in stark contrast to the original missile.

Still, the range was short, and the agility of the missile left quite something to be desired, and in 1998, when the J35J  finally was retired, the Swedes had fielded the BAe Skyflash for nigh on 20 years on the JA37 Viggen, and the AIM-120 was actually procured by the RSwAF during 1994 and integrated on the JAS39 Gripens replacing the Drakens. So while hanging AMRAAMs under the J35A may be to push things just a little bit, the Skyflash could theoretically have been integrated, had just the radar catered for them.

Also, the Skyflash monopulse seeker was designed for low level intercepts, in repeated tests hitting target drones flying below 300ft over the ground. Now, that would suit the low level backstory of my J35A very well.
I just don't quite know if it'll work aesthetically. So I will have to fabricate pylons first.

Still mulling on this, and while Skyflashes actually would work from a time perspective, they do look a tad substantial under the nimble Swedish fighter. On the other hand, I should perhaps start by replacing the Sidewinder pylons I've been using with more accurate load stations, giving something nearer to the final layout I'll be looking for when trying on the missile options.

And this would also mean some actual progress in the project as such. Progress well overdue, even 

Looking further into the missile matter today, I found >THIS< rather complete write up on the Falcon missiles by a Sean O'Connor on Air Power Australia. Interestingly, it seems that from a mathematical point of view based on actual kill ratio, the Falcons weren't that much worse - if worse at all - in comparison to Sidewinders. Of particular interest is the description of SAAB/Bofors modifying the GAR-2A IR guided missiles bought by the Air Force, adding indigeneously developed laser proximity fusing instead of the contact fuses on the American missiles, and also replacing the seeker heads with the much better heads from the GAR-4A, thereby, according to this text, creating the most effficient IR guided Falcons of the lot. In fact, the seeker head was so good that it on one occasion facilitated a very central hit on a metal disc, heated to just below 100C and dropped from a carrier aircraft at altitude, meaning true all aspect capability. These improvements together with the measures taken to increase manouverability on the later Falcon versions did actually produce a dogfight missile at least equal to the AIM-4L. 
This also explains why the RSwAF originally chose the IR Falcon rather than the Sidewinder when adding air-to-air capability to the attack AJ37 Viggen version. The Swedish Falcon was simply a better missile than the Rb24J/AIM-9J alternative already in use in Sweden, but due to aerodynamic problems when integrating the Falcon to the Viggen outer wing pylons, the more slick Rb24J had to be used at the end anyway.

Looking at the SARH versions, also the Swedish SARH Falcons, GAR-11's, were modified in Sweden. Already from the start, the Swedish proximity fuses were incorporated, but for most of their life time, the tracker head had problems with ground clutter interference, resulting in the missile being basically useless below 3000ft. When the J35F-to-J modification went ahead, however, seeker technology knowledge drawn from the Skyflash missile in use on the JA37 Viggens was incorporated in the old missiles, resulting in several successful test interceptions of targets flying as low as 150ft, both over land and water. Mentioning of the latter capacity is found >HERE<, but please be aware that the page is writtten in Swedish. Given that not only the USAF and Sweden, but also Finland and Switzerland kept Falcon missiles in service almost up to the turn of the century, I would guess that the missiles were't quite as bad as many sources have given, and thus, maybe I shouldn't disregard them as easily as I have, up till now?

The remaining main shortcomings of the missiles are the small warhead (mainly in the GAR-2, -3 and -4's , the fatter Rb27/GAR-11 carried more bang) and the still relatively short effective range. That said, the range figures were similar to Sidewinders of the same generation, ca 12 km/7,5 miles. However, the Falcons max range was actually 20 km/12,5 miles, equalling the later AIM-9L Sidewinder version that introduced new, more compact engine technology. I suppose the Falcons could have benefitted from similar improvements, reaching at least similar effective range numbers.
Still, these are short ranges in comparison to Sparrow/Skyflash which rather early on easily flew 40 km/25 miles, and later almost the double. Obviously, longer range will always be better, but all things considered, I would have said that given the standard mission profile of a Swedish (or Finnish) Draken in the 1965-1998 period (GCI of primarily enemy attack aircraft, mainly flying on the deck), these latter versions seems to hold up reasonably against the competition, looking mainly at Matra 530 as well as the Russian R-98 and R-23 missiles, but for the significantly larger warhead of all these missiles.

Given above, this does shine some new light on the Draken armament. In whif-world, it's not entirely unthinkable that even better engines increase burntime and thereby range towards 25, maybe even 30 km's, meaning not full BVR, but almost. Also, better explosives could theoretically at least partially offset the small warhead charge.
IRL, Sweden chose the larger GAR-11A/AIM-26B rather than the smaller GAR-3A, but as the only 1/72 GAR-11's in the market are annoyingly expensive and even more annoyingly fiddly resin/PE aftermarket stuff, whereas I already have quite a few GAR-3A's of reasonable shape and size, both from old Airfix Drakens and more recent Hasegawa weapons sets, maybe I should consider the smaller, lighter and less draggy GAR-3A in an evolved form as the main SARH option for the Draken after all? The Skyflash will always be a better option given warhead size and range, but it does look a bit hefty under te nimble Draken, and one actually wonders whether the small radar in the Draken, even in an evolved form, would possess the capacity to track a fighter sized target much further than 30km anyway?

Another option could be the SARH Firestreak (Blue Jay Mk4) I'm looking at for my Lightning F.2B. That missile is bigger than the Falcon, thereby giving opportunity for longer range, at least up to 40km, as well as a more reasonable warhead size. The downside here is my limited supply of Firestreaks in comparison to the around 20 Airfix/Hasegawa Falcons available. and that isn't counting the 16 not so good but usable-with-modifications missiles from the F-102 kits. And whatever is supplied in the two F-106 kits I also own. Hmmm....