Viggen FGR.1A...

[Archibald]

To be honest, I'm not a specialist of carriers (and even less of armoured vehicles...). Your number seem much more realistic than mine, a Rafale weight 9 tons empty, probably around 16 tons with its full complement of AAM and internal fuel, and 24 tons fully loaded (cruise missiles, drop tanks and the like)
That's sure, a Viggen could have been catapulted at full weight.

In every case, a Viggen in grey/ blue colors, with the anchors roundels of the aeronavale and two exocets underwings would absolutely rock!

I think about something... could the Viggen stop in 250m using its thrust reverser? you know what I mean ?

I don't know for the Mirage F2, but the Aeronavale was very interested by the Mirage G. For a reason I can't understand, it was include in the competition for the Etendard IV replacement, which led to the Super Etendard. The Mirage F1 was also on the race...but the G and F1 were more fighters than attack planes   ??

[Zen]

Viggen stops with reverser in 1,500ft or 457m. The thrust reverser is a heavy piece of engineering, and I must warn you that no navy has ever seriously considered using one on their aircraft. Quite simply having high power jets blasting over the deck (not out the back but sideways and even forwards of the aircraft) is detrimental to other aircraft, and personnel on the carriers deck. It could literaly blow people and aircraft off the ship!

MN interest in the Mirage G would seem to be from the postion that its swing wing provides for a longer endurance in CAP (combat air patrol), a good low speed for take off and landing, and a good planform for low level strike. In short the same reasons the RN looked at VG machines.
While the 'G' might not seem a attack aircraft its wing when swept should make it quite a reasonable attack aircraft, along the lines of the Mig23/27.

The big problem for fixedwing aircaft is they while they make better fighters than VG machines, they are not so good for attack and low take off and landing speeds.
A blown wing can bring a fixed wing close to VG for speeds but it cannot give it the edge in low level flight which is a function of wing loading (wing area verses the aircraft weight) nor the same endurance. With the wing swept out for low speed a VG machine can loiter in the air longer because it needs less forward speed and thus less thrust (which means it burns less fuel per minute).
Where the fixed wing 'wins' over VG is faster accelerations, and higher ceilings, things a fighter needs more.

Now had the MN and AdA agreed on the Mirage G for fighter and attack duties..... One could see the RN following, a Spey engine would make a reasonable contribution to the effort. We could have seen similar numbers for the MN and RN and for the AdA and RAF.

As it was the twin engined efforts did bring the UK in on the AFVG project.

In effect I think with the Vought Spey Crusader F8, Dassault Mirage F2, Mirage G and the SAAB Viggen we have the four aircraft that would have made a better choice for the RN than the Spey F4, that actualy flew (though the F8 flew with a different engine). Of the four the Viggen actualy entered service. The obvious course would be for SAAB to license the design to a UK manufacturer, Hawkers perhaps after the end of the P1154 program?

[Archibald]

There was a wide choice of engines, to replace the TF-306 used in the F2/F3/G family (M53 for the French, Spey for the British )
Of course, SNECMA would have cried after the french governement had the M53 hadn't been developped  
Interesting infos on VG Vs Fixed wings. You can also notice that we have a big variety of wings plans in this competition (High/variable-incidence/swept wing, simple swept wing, delta canard and VG! )

The Phantom could not be adapted to early military turbofans, wich were bigger than the J-79. Aparently those turbofans were closer on size to a J-57 (bulky, early turbojet).  And the result was that the Crusader could better handle a turbofan than the Phantom!
Later, 2nd generation turbofans come close in size to a J-79, and that's why another turbofan Phantom could be proposed in the 80's (the boeing phantom 2000 of 1984)

[AeroplaneDriver]

Nice Viggen Archie!  Would it be "Thunderbolt FGR.1" in RAF service?

Also, am I going bonkers or do I remember that the Viggen has a folding vertical stabilizer for storage in the hangars the Swedes have cut into mountain sides?

[Zen]

Yes it does.

[elmayerle]

Zen, I wouldn't say no Navy has ever played with thrust reversers.  The US Navy outfitted a F-11 with one for use both in flight and on landing as part of a test series.  They aparently didn't find enough reason to adopt a production aircraft to use it, but they did evaluate it.  Really, with a bit of care in spotting aircraft and personnel, I can't see why using a thrust reverser would not work on a carrier.

[Zen]

I honestly did'nt know about that, so thanks for the info.

And what size of carrier did they trial that on?

[Archibald]

Nice Viggen Archie!  Would it be "Thunderbolt FGR.1" in RAF service?

Also, am I going bonkers or do I remember that the Viggen has a folding vertical stabilizer for storage in the hangars the Swedes have cut into mountain sides?

I heard that Viggen meant "Thor's hammer" in swedish.
Real story was that the god launched its hammer to kill ennemies, and the hammer came back, just like a boomerang...  
Tried that one day, but the hammer never came back (and my dad was not particularly happy)
And yes, there's a aerodynamic fairing on the right side of the Viggen fin, which is a stabilizer folding.

[elmayerle]

And what size of carrier did they trial that on?

I rather suspect they used a simulated carrier at Pax River or somewhere similar, much as they do for the early evaluation of other carrier aircraft.  It makes far more sense to do testing on dry land, first, and then step up to actual sea trials.

[upnorth]

Great Viggen Archie!

I just got the same kit not long ago and initially was just going to do the classic Swedish in splinter scheme. but I've got some spare RAF decals sitting around and the weapons from Airfix's 1/72 Jaguar GR.3 tempting me to stick them on a Viggen.

I'm thinking Viggen with the Jaguar's ECM pod, PHIMAT, TIALD and a load of four British 1000 pound bombs.

I'm about 85% committed to the Canberra hemp over grey scheme if I go in the RAF direction with it.

As for the engine, I've got CMK's exterior set for the TSR.2 and know I will be using the intake and exhaust covers on my TSR.2. I test fitted the RR Olympus burner section into the back of my Viggen and in cross section it fits alright. Does anyone know if the Olympus would fit in a Viggen lengthwise?

[Archibald]

Cool! I want to see that! As you can see, I deleted the thrust reverser and double-wheels (I needed the latter for the Mirage F2).
Undercarriage come from a Mirage 2000B (changed into the Mirage F2).

[Zen]

Now I remember reading that  the early viggen designs used a Olympus, same as the TSR.2 but once that fell by the wayside, they opted for the JT8D and shortend the machine by 1m (3.28ft).

Olympus would need more fuel or it has a shorter endurance, however it should fly higher and accelerate faster. Top speed was limited by the inlets, if you want a good Whif then maybe look at Mirage style inlets? Increases weight but should take the machine above mach 2.2.

[SebastianP]

The original 26,000 lbf RM8A engine of the AJ, SF, SH, and SK versions was eventually replaced in the JA redesign by the 28,000 lbf RM8B - I don't know how that compares to the Olympus, though.

I wonder what scheme export Viggens would have ended up in, had the Saab 37E "Eurofighter" won the F-104 replacement deal - the F-16 pretty much came with its own camo, which few nations bother changing (sadly).

SP

[Archibald]

Not very familiar with Ibs calculation...in kgp, the RM8B was 11800 kgp Vs
13000 kgp or so for the TSR-2.
The A-36 (swedish nuclear bomber) would have been powered by the Olympus.
Turbojet Vs Turbofan, maybe the turbofan was a better solution (that's why I would have prefered a RB-142 or RB-168 powered TSR-2)