Talk:Saab 37 Viggen/Archive 1

Why did the USA block Viggen sales to India?
This isn't made clear in the article. Shouldn't there be a sentence with an explanation since it was brought up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.136.240 (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The official reason was that they did not allow export of advanced technology to the Eastern bloc or countries affiliated with the Eastern bloc. The real reason is unknown but a short time later USA offered India to purchase an American fighter. Unfortunately I can't remember which one. 83.248.178.222 (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Talk pages are not forums for discussing the topic. Beyond the offically stated reason, everything else you've written is just speculation. And you might not even be correct on the exact stated reason, given you lack of memory! - BilCat (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * BilCat, talk pages are to discuss improvement of the article, which exactly what is done here. /BP 78.70.77.35 (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I know SAAB made a pitch for Australia's Mirage IIIO replacement in the early-mid 1970s. From what I have read, Sweden was refused permission to export the modified Pratt & Whitney engine and this was what killed any export potential, at least as far as Australia was concerned. I am still trying to find the source of that information. In any event, the Australian order was eventually filled by the more advanced F/A-18A/B. There were several other attempts made. The first was the early Eurofighter project (not to be confused with the current one), which would have seen a number of potential European customers. The bulk purchase of F-16s by the USAF reduced the unit cost significantly and put the Viggen at a significant disadvantage (World Air Power Journal, Summer, 1993, pp. 78-80). The Indian order lost out to the SEPECAT Jaguar (ibid).Flanker235 (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

5 gen aircraft
I dispute that the Gripen is a 5th gen aircraft. It's more a 4th gen aicraft with some 5th gen capabilities. (mainly the BVR engagement capability) This is often referred to as 4.5 gen. The block 60+ F-16's also fits into this catagory. If it truely was a 5th gen aircraft, you'd have to add supermanuverability by the use of thrustvectoring or other means, and stealth capabilities.

- SAAB names Gripen as the first 5th gen aircraft. Different aircraft-manufacturers use different definitions of the generations and SAABs seem to be the most acurate, since according to SAABs US compeditors, the US have no 4th generation aircraft at all...

'Viggen' means 'Bolt'. It does not mean 'thunderbolt', the Swedish word for 'thunderbolt' would be 'åskvigg', and thus the aircraft would be called 'Åskviggen'.


 * Incorrect. A bolt is "bult" in Swedish. I'll change it back for clarification. Åskvigg and vigg are in this case synonym (a vigg is also a l ittle duck but not inthis case), the former being a tautology.

Hm, not if the bolt refers to something beeing thrown, as a crossbow bolt, then bolt would translate to skäckta. To translate vigg to bolt is still wrong though;) As mentioned vigg and åskvigg is synonymius (sp?) and would both translate to thunderbolt. 130.243.153.103 18:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that 'Viggen' is supposed to mean 'Thunderbolt'. I can think of several reasons for the shorter name: A) Viggen is a more 'striking' name (sorry), and B) It also leads the thoughts to the tufted duck ('vigg' in Swedish), and Viggen was the first Swedish aircraft with canards, 'canard' meaning 'duck' in French. The underlying double meaning is probably intentional. LarRan 14:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Renaming?
This article deals with all models of Viggen (AJ=Fighter/Attack, SK=Trainer, SF=Recce and SH=Maritime recce), and currently the article name suggests that the article only is dealing with the Fighter/Attack (AJ) version, should we need to rename the article to Saab 37 Viggen or possibly 37 Viggen? The same goes with the J 35 Draken article too, but to a lesser extent. --MoRsE 09:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

4:th generation?
I had a look at the 4:th generation fighter page and Viggen wasn't listed there. Is the Viggen realy considerd a 3:d generation fighter?130.243.153.103 18:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC). Rougly in the same age of Mirage F.1 and MiG-23, but a bit too advanced overall. The JA-37 could called atleast a 3.5 gen fighter to my mind.--Stefanomencarelli 21:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The generations are simply marketing pitches, with no consensus whatsoever. It doesn't become any clearer with every country/manufacturer having their own definition. BP OMowe (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikified
This page may no longer need the Wikified tag  Hughey 17:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hughey, read the "engine section". FWIWBzuk 00:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC).

I know, that guy keeps adding more material. Its good though, keeping my English grammer sharp.Hughey 19:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Since this in an english wikipage, I don't think there should be references to italian language publications. Swedish language references are unavoidable (because of the swedish product) but not preferred. Does anyone have comments? T96 grh 11:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the concern that has been brought forward on a number of occassions, not only in this instance but in a wide-ranging series of contributions all derived from an encyclopedia issued in serial magazine form in the 1980s in Italy. There are many reference sources in English that can be easily verified and these should predominate in an English-language forum. FWIW Bzuk 11:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC).
 * The engine section in particular needs a severe trimming - There is a lot of dubious statements here i.e. that use of the JT8D forced the Vigen to be much larger than the Draken, despite the fact that the two aircraft were virtually the same size (and the Draken actually has a larger wing area!) together with some possibly OR (and definately of marginal relavence to the subject) unsourced comparisons. Nigel Ish 17:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The engine is the most important thing of Viggen, coupled with wings.

Now you accuse me to made an awful OR, instead you should care to search more news about this engine.

Now i'll give you no excuses about. Here the comparations between Draken, Viggen, Gripen and their engines. All material is from RID magazine (the mainstay of italian magazines of this category, effectively very fews).N 8/94 (article of engeneer S.Coniglio), RID 6/93, RID 5/93, RID 10/96 and Aereonautica&Difesa 8/89:

As aircrafts: J-35---J-37---J-39

Wingspan: 9,4--10,6---8,4

Wing surface: 49,2--52,2(with canards)---28

Length: 15,35---16,3--14,1

height: 3,89--5,8--4,5

Weights: 7.425/12.065--12.000/20.000---5,600/12.500

As engines:

RM-8A: 1350x6153 mm (7,570 l. volume), 1.07 bypass, 11.800kgs, 2100 kg fuel cons. 17,6-70 mg/Ns

RM-8B: 18,1-71,4 mg/Ns, 0,97 bypass, 2220 kg, 12.700kgs.

RM-12: 880x4030 mm (=around 2,457 l. volume) weight 1050 kg, bypass 0.28, fuel consumption ? thrust: 54-80,5 kN.

RM-6C:Frankly not know but let's consider it was Hunter engine (a small aircraft, 6500/11200 kg, 13 m lenght and 11 wingspan)

AL-21F-3: 885x5160 mm (around 3,100 l.), 2,005kg, 11,100kgs, fuel cons. 21-52,5 Mg/Ns

From these numbers is cleary show that Viggen was influenced as nobody else by the engine dimensions. I remark that the much smaller JAS-39 has an engine with over 5,000 litres less volume, and weights full equipped like the Saab 35 and also like Saab 37 *Empty*.

So what do you are thinking about? I remark that also, RM-8 are 4,400 l. bigger than the pratically equivalent (around 11-12 ton. thrust) AL-21F-3. And i finally remark that the volume difference is so great that is in the same size of all internal fuel. Theoretically, if you sobstitute RM-8 with AL-21 or RM-12 you will have enough internal volume to *double* internal fuel.

That's not OR. That's simply a lecture of available datas (even if not as rookie levels), that tell to us cleary and without any doubt that Viggen size was heavily influenced by engine (aha-what a surprise, an aircraft influenced by engine available). Even accounting the heavy electronic inside the machine, this is still a too much difference with S 35 and 39 (both not exactly deprived of electronics). And finally, RM-8 was not choose for any other fighter, another not casual fact. Because it was *too bulky* for a mach 2 fighter.

Tornado was quite similar to Viggen for many reasons (not related to wing). It was not too bigger, but it had two RB 199, each has a volume of 900x 3300 mm and 981 kg in one of the latest versions. This was a volume of around 2104 l x2, still two engines have 3,400 l. less volume than Viggen RM-8. And effectively, the internal fuel is around 6,000-7,000 l.

I think that there are not need to more words. I have tried but if you prefer to call me troll as BillBC has done (without punishment, obviosely) i could only conclude that i am wasting my time here. Numbers sometimes speaks themselves, people not always listen them.--Stefanomencarelli 20:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding:

PW F100 GE -229: 1180x4626, 75,7/129 kN, 1,700 kg. Volume approx: 5,076 l.

GE F110-129: 1181x5280, 79,2/129,4 kN, 1,669 kg SFC 9,74/2,05 kg/h/Kgs. Volume: 5,780 l.

Two of these have all around 1,1 times power than 2 RM8A, 600 and 660 kg less weight, and finally 5,000 and 3,600 l. less volume.

Try to fit two RM8A in a F-15 or a single in a F-16. The result should be funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanomencarelli (talk • contribs) 21:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Again - you hve quoted no sources for the above data - and CRUCIALLY this information is used to draw a conclusion that the RM8 was too large for a fighter engine, and that the Viggen was therefore larger desired and short ranged - without a source for this conclusion, it remains a synthesis, and therefore OR, no matter how obvious it may seem to you. There are many factors affecting aircraft design other than the size of the engine including the actual requirements that the aircraft was designed to meet. Nigel Ish 22:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you cannot make comparisons of engines from different time periods. There is a reason why jet engines develop to be smaller and more powerful.

Initially in the development of Viggen there were talks of making a 'SuperDraken' but those were quickly abandoned. Once you decide to develop a new airframe, you start looking for available engines. Rule number one in conceptual design is to NEVER combine a non-existing airframe and a non-existing engine. It virtually guarantees that the engine, once ready, will not fit the airframe. You can update an existing aircraft with new engines, even from a different manufacturer, because they know what internal airframe size they have to work with.

From there came the work to find an existing engine suitable to the operational requirements of the proposed Viggen. There were none existing engines. The closest ones looked at were the RR Spey and Bristol Olympus but neither were found suitable. The TF30 was undergoing development at that time and had problems with compressor stall throughout it's lifetime. My guess is tat the Olympus 201 was probably the closest in match, but the Viggen was decided to have fixed inlets which compromise pressure recovery and probably gave too high turbine temperature for the existing engine.

Using two engines was probably never seriously considered because Swedish planes never operate over large bodies of water. Also, it would have made things much more expensive.

Saab had had British engines up until then, and had a good relationship with RR. Using Russian engines was a BIG no-no. French, maybe, but I don't know if the political climate allowed that.

The only remaining option was to modify an existing civilian engine. Since P&W were busy with the TF30, Svenska Flygmotor (Volvo Aero) were given the go-ahead to use the JT8D and keep the engine development at least in the same country. It was a semi-violation of rule number one in conceptual design, but without other options, there was not much else to do.

This was the reason why the RM 8 got to be so big. T96 grh 22:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, Ish, you are accusing me to have UNSOURCED DATAS. I REMARK TO WHOSE INTERESTED that such datas are from the above mentioned magazines, a series of articles written by A.Nativi and S.Coniglio. How is it possible that whetever i state this is 'onsourced' IF this is simply not believed? I HAVE SOURCES, but you are not available to accept it even if i told you where they are. I repeat, with guys like you it's a waste of time.

To T96: It's not matter if the aircraft engines are or not of the same period: first, AL-21 and RM-8 are not so different as period, and i don't care if swedish not liked them, the fact remain that they had LESS THAN THE HALF volume while offering almost the same thrust.

Second, the fact remains that Viggen was builb bigger both predecessors and fullowers models, and this, strangely enough is related to one of the most bigger fighter engines ever made. If Gripen is built so smaller than Viggen just tell me if perhaps the engine dimensions (2,3 m3) are related to it. Put in a such small fighter an RM-8 and then tell me where is the place for all the rest, fuel included. Put RM8 in a Mirage F.1 and then tell me where is the space for all the rest. It's simple, after all. But not enough simple for some of you.--Stefanomencarelli 11:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, to make comments about the size of the RM 8, you have to make references to jet engines of the same type from the same era. The RM 8 is a first generation turboFAN. The AL-21 and SNECMA Atar are turboJETs. To me, that is a world of difference in military jet engines.

Saab chose to develop the RM 8 simply because there were no other available engines that fit the demand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T96 grh (talk • contribs) 16:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Noooooo... That's not what i meant. I said:
 * IS it true or not that RM-8 is bulky one?
 * Yes, it is indeed.


 * Is it true or not that Gripen and Draken engines are a lot smallers?
 * Point being? Draken has a turbojet, Gripen is 25 years newer. Viggen was developed as a low-level attack aircraft.


 * Is it true or not that a big engine in the fuselage affect the aircraft design?
 * Of course it does.


 * Is it true or not that Gripen and Draken are a way smaller and lighter than Viggen?
 * Point being?


 * Is it true or not that AL-21F-3 (an engine rougly of the same time) is half the volume than RM8?
 * Yes, one is a turboJET, the other is a turboFAN


 * Is it true or not that internal fuel in Viggen is not much and the range is not so good even if the engine is an economic one?
 * The range is what was required by the Swedish Air Force.


 * Is it true or not that at full AB the RM8 drinks all the fuel in just seven minutes (reported by A.Nativi article, Bill Gunston book, Take Off enciclopedy)
 * Yes, perhaps you don't need more defending the coast of Sweden.

-while as example F-104 is able to go in supersonic well over 20 minutes at full throttle
 * You compare a high-altitude interceptor-optimized F-104 against a low-level attack aircraft.

-while Mirage F.1 is listed around 260 kg/minuts as fuel consumption (=around 15 minutes) while SFC of AL-21 is worse in combat (18 vs 22 mG/N) but better in full AB (52 vs 71)? Also Su--7 is rated as drinking all fuel in 8 minuts but it had only 3,000, just as example.
 * Look at STOL performance of the Su-7


 * And finally, it's true or not that the rougly contemporary aircraft design: MiG-23, Mirage F.1, Su-15 (all entered in service around in the same years) had all turbojets? If they had an overall similar range and endurance (overall, it's talk about 1000 km range, as typucal missions) so just tell me, the RM8 engine, so costly and bulky what hell served when an Atar 9K-50 was enough to perform, with a smaller fighter as Mirage F.1 (15 ton full loaded), rougly the same missions and flight profile? Come on, Viggen grewth too much. While with Gripen swedish designers retourned to the tradition of small fighters, single engined (With small engines as well).
 * Viggen was designed as an attack aircraft, not a fighter.


 * Spey Phantoms were not an improvement despite the higher thrust, they were bigger, heavier and slower than J-79 ones and nobody cared to change these latters with Speys. Why, if not because it was not a good businnes, because not necessarly a turbofan is better than a turbojet if requires some important modiphics that actually worse the overall project of the aircraft. And it was cleary the case with RM8. Give to swedish projectists, in that time, an F100 or 110, or even a 'super J79 (as basically could be called AL-21, that had almost the same power without AB than J-79 at full AB) and tell me if they choose to develop the heavier of all single-engine fighters (outside US). Do you are aware that more an aircraft weights, more costs, basically?--Stefanomencarelli 21:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Turbofans were thought to give better performance in mid 1960s when the Viggen was projected. T96 grh 23:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, excellent. So because there is no data in english about the size of the aircraft's engines you call for a policy that in fact forbid any add in non-english language? Oh, wonderful. So it's guilth of mine if there is not such articles in your language? Let's cut it short, call me 'liar' and we are all happy.

I gave also english 'references' in other webpages, but still, they are not enough. Andrea Nativi is not enough, Nico Sgarlato is not enough, Joe Baugher is not enough? Well, so do your articles with your lack of informations and be happy. I'd grab the policy Ignore all rules but seen as how cowardly was performed the affair CF-104 then i must understand that there is not will to seriosly face one with others. You simply rejecting spurces because are not written in english. And go figure, Tom Cooper writes in english but also him is not lucky: obviousely the censorship made by wiki has hittem him as well.

So dear wiki fellows, if you are not even able to found any sources in english about the above mentione engines (really ridicolous, when and how numbers need translation??) so be it. I have wasted my time enough with this stuff. Remain well with your handicappated articles, and have fun. Today Wikipedia.en has showed to be 'reliable': had called ininfluent all the non-english sources- Greetings.--Stefanomencarelli 21:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Original alternative engine to the RM-8 was the 15,000lb. st. (dry) Rolls-Royce RB177 but it was in an early stage of development and was later cancelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

To all editors involved in this article
There is a policy issue that is involved here that needs clarification. The following is the relevant information and is exactly quoted: Sources in languages other than English Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.

Keep in mind that translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Wikipedia editor or a professional, published translator. In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly.

Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:
 * Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
 * Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.

Given that there are other English-language sources of equal quality provided in the notes and reference section of the article, these must take precedence. Since none of the recently submitted material actually can be attributed properly, there is a case for its removal in entirety. FWIW Bzuk 14:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC).


 * All of the engine data, (which is the only data actually cited from the non-english language sources) can be from more reliable sources (e.g. Janes All the Worlds Aircraft etc IF needed. Of course, that is a big if.Nigel Ish 22:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "The IF needed" is my argument against much of Stefanomencarelli's engine discussion. My opinion is that much (but not all) of his text is not relevant for the Viggen. He is repeatedly making comparisons between the diameter of turbojet and turbofan engines, where IMHO one cannot readily do so. A more obvious issue is to compare a mid-1960s 1st generation turbofan against 15 year newer turbofan designs. There was a lot of material development permitting higher turbine temperatures->higher pressure ratios->better performance and ultimately smaller size engines during that time. The last of my objections is the comparison of aircraft designed for completely different operational requirements. I have made comments in his discussion in the section above if anyone missed that. T96 grh 02:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Without the ability to verify the references cited, the reliability and accuracy of these statements about engines, airframes and the like, is in question. FWIW, the editor's insistence that the original research requirement be rescinded for en.Wikipedia is also on record. Bzuk 03:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC).
 * I removed the specific comparisons to the Mirage and Sukhoi aircraft since neither of those are anywhere near having STOL performance. T96 grh 18:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

STOL performance of the Saab 37 Viggen
The STOL-like performance of the Viggen is an aspect of its design that is unusual. I think since there is some contention that it was not a "true" STOL, it may become a topic that has to be resolved first on the discussion page. On the other hand, if editors have some reliable and authoritative reference sources then it is a suitable topic to be introduced into the article, with an edit note that a further discussion is found on the talk page. Please comment. FWIW Bzuk 10:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC).
 * From these two links; and, especially the first one, one can follow the development where Saab and SwAF clearly set out to design an aircraft that could operate from much shorter runways than aircraft from that era. Among the projects included separate lift engines similar to F-35B and even complete VTOL similar to Harrier. The entire 1500-series designs (1534 became Viggen) are named as STOL-projects by the webpage author. Based on the available info, and from User_talk:Towpilot dicussions, Viggen was designed to be STOL-capable, but it was almost never used as such (only in airshows). The reason was the accelerated wear on the aircraft in peacetime. Also, is there any requirements on payload for STOL capability? The Viggen might only have been capable of STOL with minimal load, but does that rule it out as STOL-capable? T96 grh 14:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also yak-38 and Sea Harrier had only minimal load as VTOL but still they were VSTOL. How much used not matter. Almost all the supersonic aircrafts not fly in supersonic but still they are supersonic capable. Only SR-71, Concorde and MiG-25/B-58 maybe were true supersonic used aircrafts, but the fact that supersonic flight is minimal -expecially for a 7 minuts endurance supersonic aircraft like Viggen, not prevent to call this aircraft also supersonic (obviousely i don't ask too much to you about this example that means that not necessarly a potential is really used, as Carl Lewis not walks at 36 kmh normally, mind you).--Stefanomencarelli 20:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Just on the same matter. As an intial point I wish to ask a preliminary question: Do NATO definitions apply to Swedish aeronautics, at least as a theorical reference ? In fact, following the NATO definitions, STOL airplanes have a 450 m limit in their performance and the Viggen had never reached that data. I think the most appropriate word should be "almost STOL", but there is the need to understand NATO theory applicability. I thank you for your opinion. --EH101 11:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The question I had was if Viggen qualified for STOL with minimal load or if STOL is defined at MTOW? It was 500m runway length at MTOW, so a clean Viggen should clear STOL-limitations easily. Also, even though Sweden was neutral during the cold was, NATO definitions applies more than one might think. Sweden was definitely pro-NATO during the entire post-WWII. Much equipment is NATO-adapted. Ammunition is almost entirely sourced from West. Aircraft refueling connectors are NATO standard. As far as runways go, things start to become really interesting. Arvidsjaur(ESNX), Kiruna and Lulea (extended to 3500m) are 2500m(8200ft) long and Vidsel is 2200m(7300ft). Several other runways far from any towns >25,000people are 2000m(6500ft) long. No Swedish aircraft were ever designed to use these long runways, so what might they have been used for? All starts to make sense when one realizes that the range of the US nuclear bombers does not permit them to return to US after a mission. Fuel runs out on the way back somewhere over Scandinavia... T96 grh 20:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that this argumentation (STOL issue) is not well understood. Let's say that we grab STOL as meant in WWII: 50-100 m. airstrips. So not even an Harrier in STOL take-off is enough, at those time the standard bombers took off often in just 400 m. So what's the point to use the NATO numbers? The real issues are: are Viggens meant to perform STOL? They were meant as STOL capable, so yuo figure if 50 m more or less are relevant. Secondly, when used as STOL, Viggen can use -light loaded- even 400 m airstrips take-off and 500 landing. So it's definitively a STOL capable, perhaps also for NATO 'standards'. It's not matter if in normal landing it used let's say 1 km airstrip. Also Harriers in real conditions almost never take off in vertical and often lands as conventional machines. 100 m airstrip=1 ton extra load for Harrier. So take off from 300-400 m is normal, likely and without problems. This not deny the V/STOL capability, that is just any other capability: a potential that sometimes is used. The fact, as example, that Tornados not always flies supersonic at sea level not means that they are not capable of TFR rides all-weather. Just as example.'is Viggen STOL for NATO standards' is just like 'is MiG-21 an all weather interceptor for NATO standards?' It's not really matter. MiG-21D/N had an AI radar and it's enough to call it all weather, even if F-16 has a suite of avionics far better. What counts is basically if the aircraft is designed to perform some things. And Viggen is cleary designed to do STOL, regardless 50m.+/-.--Ric1999 21:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I really doubt that anyone at Saab or the SwAF could have cared less about the definition of true STOL, specifically by NATO, when the 37 was developed! The Air Force had a "wish list" about what they wanted the aircraft to be able to do. That included the airplane to operate from the already existing system of "off airport bases" whith relatively short temporary runways. The requirements just happened to be kind of close, but not within, to the so called NATO definition of STOL! It makes no sence to belive that Saab, or the SwAF, first looked at this definition and said "We want that!" and then tried (and failed) to design the new airplane accordingly, instead of looking for what they really needed. Also, the numbers given above keeps forgetting what I pointed out on my discussion page, it is a significant difference in distance between rolling on the ground and also clearing an obstacle of 50 feet. I do not understand the argument about "beeing capable" of STOL as relevant. Why would the Air Force be interrested if the airplane could take off by NATO definition of STOL at minimum fuel with no hot cargo from a highway in combat? A completely useless expensive toy for display show off! I gave two examples before of other airplanes that have proven themselves to "be capable" to do STOL stunts without anyone therefore calling them STOL aircraft. I dare anyone to try to change them to STOL aircraft in their articles! Let's just face it, with the obstacle clearing requirements in both take off and landing, this is not a true STOL aircraft!--Towpilot 11:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * From the page: STOL is an acronym for Short Take-Off and Landing, a term used in the aircraft industry to describe aeroplanes with very short runway requirements.


 * Definition of STOL: Short Take Off and Landing.


 * Now you observ well these definitions. There is no meters requirement about distance. STOL means basically, every aircraft capable to short the distances for TO and Landing thanks to special features it has. Nothing else. Viggen needs approx one third of F-14/F-104 and the half of Mirage F.1. There are machines like F-15/16 MiG-29 capable to take-off in even less space, but it's not so as landing. Relativize in basis to NATO requirements is not really interesting. If you care about STOL definitition in 1964, well, you can still put a sort of 'capable of STOL operations, even if not matching the asked NATO numbers'. But one thing is operate with a 6 t. machine, let's say G.91, another is operate with a 20 t.


 * Just to clear this: F-16 are 9g. fighters? Yes, but with 2700 kg dropped to 5. Tornado was tested even with 520 m take off, almost STOL. But the normal asked is, at normal weight, around 900.


 * So if Viggen is capable to take off at max weight in 500 m i don't see any problem even to meet NATO requirements at very light weight.


 * As aircrafts, let's see G.222 among the STOL machines: but try to put in it 9 t. maximum load, ad 450 m clearance 15 will be gone: the normal take off is atleast 500 m.


 * All by all, a 1964 burocratic definition made by NATO it's not an international standard misure and so not an 'Holy Graal' at all.--Stefanomencarelli 11:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we're starting to reach towards a consensus here. Even though Viggen apparently was not designed for the NATO STOL definitions (which appeared 2 years after the Viggen design was frozen in 1962), it should still be mentioned as a STOL capable aircraft. The reason being is that no other supersonic strike fighters (that I can think of right now) came even close to having STOL-performance on both take-off and landing. T96 grh 14:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have used exactly the same words of Bill Gunston/Mick Spick about Viggen in the book i have. Atleast on that generation they were STOL as nobody other was. And even if today maybe Gripen is STOL as well, it's not so matters. And the specific features about STOL Viggen had are both tecnical and effectivity, really STOL-meant. Go figure, already MiG-23 and Tornado were seen as STOL-alike machines..--Stefanomencarelli 15:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * According to this page http://wp.scn.ru/mig_okb/planes-mig23-char the only operational MiG-23 that comes close to STOL is the 23P with 450m takeoff but 650m landing. The opposite is for the Tornado. According to this page http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/tornado.html takeoff is 760m but landing is an impressive 366m (due to the adjustable sweep wings and thrust reverser). I would not really classify either of them as having STOL-performance even though the intent was to use shorter runways. MiG 23 was supposed to use separate lifting engines (as many other projects did in the late-50s / early 60s) but abandoned it. T96 grh 15:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as T96 grh points out, the Viggen design was finalised two years prior to NATO's definition of STOL, and just happened to have a performance capability (by design) that fell within that definition under various circumstances. Does everyone agree? If so, then why not simply state as such within the article? Something like:)-
 * The Viggen design was finalised two years prior to the NATO definition of STOL, and in fulfilling its design requirements, was capable of a performance that, under various conditions of armament and fuel loads, satisfied that definition and therefore should be considered as being STOL-capable.

I believe that "STOL-capable" does apply here, as apparently the Viggen can meet the definition (even if not with a "useful" armament and fuel load) and really that's all that matters. --Red Sunset 20:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Funny things to read. I have a monography about Tornado written by Nico Sgarlato, one of the most if not the most prominent italian aeronautic journalist. He states that Tornado IDS reachs only mach 1,92 or 2030 kmh above 11,000 m, and even Tornado ADV reachs only 2,16 mach. Still, the sites that talks about Tornado are reporting the old lies that already in 1991 was decouvered about the real speed of Tornado. Not only, the real operative range of Tornado at Cottesmore, that not uses external fuel, is enough pratically to reach Whales, or 200 km away..One day someone will be able to not copy-paste the old spaceballs declared about Tornado? Just find one Tornado IDS crew that has managed to get Mach 2. Just one. I am pretty sure, atleast in operative sqn. that none of them has ever been able to do so. The higher values about speed at altitute is mach 1,6, not more, and i talk of clean machines. Put an LRTM in the nose and drop to mach 1,4.

Apart this, the datas seems a bit confuse. It's clear that MiG and Tornado are STOL alike, not perhaps STOL but they have feautes (VW, TR, etc.) to do this. But nobody as Viggen, that had just delta wings. 366 m is a bit wild as statement, not counts arguably a Tornado with ext loads.

To me, apart this, the impression is the fullowing: maybe i mistake something, but the project of Viggen was badly inlfuenced by the size of engine. I personally calculated that with a J79 the MTO could had been about 4 t less, with not necessarly a worse range: a sort of IAI Kfir with TR and bigger canards. I bet that the performances would had been atleast the same but with a 15 t machine. Consider that Viggen was shortened of 50 cm to down the empty weight of 500 kg to reduce costs, so i imagine, that the old Avon can still be pretty good. Yes i am a lover of old turbojets. I don't like turbofans. As F-4 Spey showed, not always the bet was winning with first gen TF.--Stefanomencarelli 21:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sgarlato is an author exactly like several others in Italy. He does his job well as he writes on popular magazines that rely on venues from the market. When he writes on RID or UFO, his audience is more of aeronautics fans than specialists (who are many times smaller as a market). This is perfectly fair, but sometimes is difficult to separate his attention to rumours from actual facts. In any case, he has all rights to emphasize his opinions and personal theories in order to fascinate his fans. In the same time, I knew lots of Italian pilots, technicians and experts and nobody has such those articles in their collection as they prefer to be informed reading from international specialised press or books, that I perfectly know are very expensive and not available in common newsstands. --EH101 22:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

1-Sgarlato has NEVER wrote for RID. The fact that you not discriminate between RID and Aerei speaks a volume.

2-Max speed of Tornado is not a 'personal theory' It's a matter of fact. And if he wrote such datas it was because he had sources to state that.

3-Ask to your pilots when and where they were capable to reach mach 2 with an IDS.--Stefanomencarelli 12:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've got the answer to your questions about Tornado endurance. I have also ranges: 1400 km with 4 t, 1800 with 2, 2500 with 1,1, 2800 km internal fuel range, 4200 ferry ext. This is simple to explain IF you are not spinned by definition of 'range'. Look: ferry range. It's not meaning 8400 km but just 4200. So, as often in WWII bombers, the 'range' is mixed with 'endurance'. So 1400 km means: or endurance with this load onboard, or the distance archiviable with this warload (Ex.: 700 km with bombs, then release them and return=1400 km). Obviousely this is misleading, as normally 'range' is meaning as 'max distance archiviable and return' and not a ferry range. But you know, advertising is a bad animal(-). The ferry range of 4200 km and max range with 1300 kg or whetever of 2500 (=5000?????) is explicable only with this 'interpretation'. Or, perhaps, is the max range with AR, but in this case why there must be such differences depending by load (1400-2500 km) when external fuel is provided? So, i simply think that datas (and combat missions) speaks so: these are 'distances' rather than ranges. If not, i'd expect RAF and LW missions to bomb directly Moskow and even farther. It's never happened.--Ric1999 16:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Canard flaps.
Just a small point; do the canard flaps always lower in conjunction with the landing gear, or can the gear be lowered without the flaps? --Red Sunset 17:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I know from what I was told in the SwAF, the canard flaps went up/down with the landing gear. The pilot cannot control the flaps. There might be a velocity dependence, but I'm not sure about it. T96 grh 17:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks T96 grh. I've just been looking over some of the "tricky" engine-related additions with a view to improving the grammar, and to make it more readable and understandable. I hope that you will check over my edits and correct them where necessary as some of the information requires interpretation of meaning. --Red Sunset 18:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, but there is big discussion going on whether some, or any, of Stefanomencarelli's engine info should be in the article at all. Just don't want you to waste your time on it. T96 grh 18:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings
Seen i was called i am there. But for the last time. I see, all the stuff is gone. You have acted as promised. I am amused, as promised. Not really interested to talk with who not exitates to delete all because he don't believe to the datas and trivial conclusions (i repeat that Viggen size is not casually almost twice as the other mach 2 saabs, but not matter. So you can try to put a bull's heart in a human chest and see if it is well fitted inside). You have it. You be happy. And this is a link http://www.rbs.ru/vttv/99/firms/baranov/r-al21.htm

about AL-21F. Dimensions are slight different but still well under the RM-8's. --Stefanomencarelli 20:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Appendix about engine fuel consumptions:
-Eric Desplaces and Philippe Roman about Mirage F.1 stated in one article apparead in Aerei n.12/01, that the fuel cons. was, at low level, of 260 l./sec, that gives around 15 min. at full A/B. Viggen has over 2 SFC with his engine: seven minuts and the fuel is gone, at least at low levels. Just the half, apparently, than Mirage.

Tecnical side comment: the SFC of Atar is not known to me. If the SFC dry/AB is about the same of others: like 0,9/1,9, with the ufficial rated thrust (static or at take off): 13.680 kg max cons., i don't know the specific weight of kerosene. If it is 0,7 there is around 20,000l./hours, Mirage has so 12 min at full AB, a 20% less than stated by article. Not so big but still a difference. Even so this lead a around 300 l/min cons., 12 min endurance and 80% better than Viggen.

-Su-22 has engines with 1.9 SFC at full AB. This gives a unitary jet cons. of 11.200x1.9/3600= 6 kg/sec. RM-8 is 8,6 kg/sec. rougly 50% more.

Perhaps Nativi has reported values too much high but depend also from the condition, speed and so on: perhaps he saw really fluxometer gives these numbers, maybe mistakenly for a 15 l.sec.? (in the article he made both a tecnical analisis and a twice flight report with a SK-37B, both air combat and air-to ground mission)

Comment, further: SFC is rated for RM-8A/B, still with Nativi'article numbers, at about 17 mg/N dry, 71 AB. This means, with RM-8: an SFC of only 0,63 dry (really outstandig, 10% less than 0,7 that already is really good), while at full AB there is a SFC of around 32t/hour (for RM8B) and so, an SFC of 2,5. This means rougly 6,5 min at full AB as rated power of about 12,800 kgs. With RM-8A roughly there are 7 mins. endurance. But in some manners the RM-8B is improved for interceptors tasks, i not know how. Also SFC at full AB is a value out of standards. Compared with a pure turbojet like AL-21F-3 this mean that RM-8 cons. 27% less at military, but also 30% more at full AB. As example, SFC of F100-229 is 0,74/2,05 dry/AB. This explain well how interceptor engines have low bypass (in this case: 0,33:1, all the data comes from article of engeneer S.Coniglio, RID 8/94).

Perhaps i made some mistake as calculations, not matter, they are not so big either.

This explain well the necessity to develop a specific engine for JA-37s, something happened also for Tornado ADV exausts. Full AB is too costly for an high bypass turbine. More the AB is necessary, more the TJ or TF with low bypass (ex F404/RM12) are advantaged compared to the TF high bypass (rougly 1:1).

Tornado has a very compact one, that not affects at all the internal space for fuel, but draws of Viggen shows that over two thirds of the fuselage from exausts to cockpit are occuped by engine..

Botton line: if the engine is too bulky, the fuel availability drops and so the game is losing, while the airframe became unnecessary big (you cannot avoid the diameter and lenght of an engine inside the fuselage). French Mirage F.1 had a much economic TJ and was plenty of fuel (4,000 l.) for a 15 t. machine, so the overall endurance was better, even with an old TJ fuel-hungry (dry). Mirage F.1 whipped F.2 equipped with TF-33?, because in fact it was able to perform almost the same stuff costing much less also. I suspect that some (Sweden and URSS) make a mistake. To me, i would kicked out MiG-23 (despite i love it) and use a powerful R-25 with a Miragerovsky airframe, i mean, similar to a Fishbed but with a nose bigger for radar and 4000 l (and not 3000 internal as iG 21) internal fuel. It could have functioned.

-Napoleone Bragagnolo (F-104 special published by JP-4 magazine), pilot test of AMI,stated that F-104 is able to do supercruise: He flew from Tourin to Rome in 19 minuts (average around mach 1,6) with a F-104S with two aux. fuel tanks (=5500 l.). He stated, that the aircraft had the fuel to reach Palermo (maybe at subsonic speed).

One former pilots even stated of a supercruise at 20,000 m with 90Kg/min consumption, also with a F-104.

_It happear that high ceiling performances are better for pure TJ, and this is showed also by Denis J. Calvert in Aerei N.(not remember)/91 stated about J79 RAF Phantoms,they were able to score mach 2,3 at 13.000 m, a way more than Spey Phantoms. Just few debriefs about the known reported performances of classical fighters.--Stefanomencarelli 18:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're finally starting to understand the choice of engine for Viggen. Since Viggen was not considered as an interceptor (because Draken already filled that role), a high fuel consumption at full AB was less of a concern, because AJ Viggen would not spend very much time with full AB. The major design point was low fuel consumption at high subsonic speeds (M~0.9) which is where an afterburning turboFAN has an advantage over a turboJET. Then comes the second design criteria; 500m takeoff run with a heavy weapons load. Yet again does a turboFAN start to have an advantage over a turboJET at low speed. Now, the choice of engine makes more sense for the AJ, but not for the JA. Had Viggen been developed as a JA first, the choice would have been an obvious turboJET. T96 grh 21:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This bring, however, to two other questions:why if it was not considered an interceptor it was linked to STRIL 60? And why if it was considered an attack machine it had no gun? All swedish aircrafts had them. AJ was fitted with none, but it had external wing pods. Why if it had not enough space inside? And how the JA-37 was reprojected with a sort of anti-tank gun? I remark that Tornado ADV was fitted with one gun less than IDS, as example. Jadkviggen should need less a gun than teh AJ.


 * Viggen had a secondary role as fighter (hence AJ instead of just A). The gun pods could probably function as dual purpose for air and ground attacks. Viggen was also designed in he 60s when guns were though obsolete and missiles could fulfill that role. USAF paid a dear price for that mistake in Vietnam. Viggen has a 30mm cannon and not a gun. Gun bullets are dumb whereas cannon ammunition is mostly smart with fragmentation grenades and zone fuse. T96 grh 13:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

These are sites about Viggen: a PDF document full of datas:, the always excellent G.Goebel site , Viggen performances , Viggen engine  and. Bottom line is also that 1,35 m is the max widht, not average, but the lenght is even greater about RM-8B. I rely on Nativi data about bypass ratio, that seems well more rationale than the various and imprecise datas available on internet. Atleast he wrote them as engeneer, not fanzine or advertising publicity.

I suggest to study heavily such materials above posted to reach some rational conclusions, only possibles with cross source controls, because they often are in conflict. SFC made by Nativi is confirmed by PDF document also.

As electronic, Greg Goebel had made a really complete work, if not believe in Nativi atleast get a look to him.--Stefanomencarelli 11:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added the update section from Greg Goebel site, he claimed his texts is for public domain.Tnx Greg--Stefanomencarelli 11:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, it was not a opyright violation, but you cannot just copy&paste an entire block of text from another website. This caouses major pain for the rest of us trying to clean up information in more than one place in the text. T96 grh 13:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

JA 37 Oerlikon cannon
All sources list the JA 37 of having 150 rounds of ammunition. However, when I worked on the Viggen, we could only fit 125 rounds normally. By packing the belt for a minute or so, we could just barely squeeze in an extra round. I don't know where the info on the 150 rounds come from. Could be Saab false promotional material that everyone quoted, or confusing it with the ADEN pods that apparently had 150 rounds. T96 grh 15:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This ruins my wargames, and more, it's obviousely OR. But effectively all the sources stated 150 bullets. I don't like the word cannon, sorry. Automatic guns, as Tony Williams would say, it's better.
 * Do you can confirm the use of 135 mm rockets as one of the main weapons? As bombs? 120, 227, 454 kg?
 * In wiki.it we use Goebel as source without problems, traduced obviousely.
 * As gunpod with 126-150 ctrs: i think that the 'projected', original gunpod was bigger, or there is another possibility: the link between the gun and the magazine: after all, also A-10 has 1174 or 1300 crts: which of the two is correct? Both, because the magazine has 1174, and the link other 100+.


 * I think cannon is more appropriate for airplane weapons and is a word commonly shared in the majority of the aeronautical community language and literature. The issue of the 150- rounds could be easly solved by adding the word 150 round max. It is quite common, even on other planes, that real magazines are not fully capable to store official data number rounds. This is well known by technicians and the word "max" is often read by experts like "in theory". "In wiki.it we use Goebel as source without problems" ...hmmm, I think anybody should speak as it.wiki spokesman.--EH101 22:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Cannon' is absolutely appropriate since the ammunition is of grenade-type and not solid lump of metal as in guns.


 * We (my squadron) only loaded rockets once on the JA, never bombs. It wasn't a big priority for fighter pilots to practice bomb-dropping.


 * Yes i can confirm. There is no photo known to me with JA-37 without. No weapons were normally fitted in the centerline and no missile was ever used from it. SK 37 had always ventral tank, i know. Seen that gunpod is pratically external, i think that there was not still place inside the aircraft to have all the stuff needed, not even in JA37. Ric1999 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason for stating 125-126 rounds of ammo on the JA 37 is that we counted them - every single round. Both before and after a mission. I can understand why USAF does not bother keeping track of 1174-1300 rounds on the A-10. The 125-126 is for the internal cannon of the JA, not the gun pods of the AJ/SF/SH/SK. T96 grh 02:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Range

 * As range, the Inesorable N.Ish has leaved the staff about the not so good range of Viggen. The ufficial datas, apart the AB 7 infamous minuts, speaks differently. Viggen, with 4x454 kg bombs is rated as 850 km lo-lo and 1300 km hi-lo-hi with 5 minuts combat. But other datas speaks as 450-500 km with 6x227 kg lo-lo and 1000 km high-lo-high. These datas apparently do not matchs one with other, perhaps the lower one is with fuel tank (or simply more realistic)? In every cases, Saab 35 Draken is rated with 3250 km ferry range, Gripen with 3.000. They are not worse than Viggen. Other aircrafts, with TJ are not worse than Viggen.

F-104S A/A is capable to go up to 1250 km, with 7x340 kg reachs 490 km Lo-Lo and 700 Hi-lo-hi.

Mirage F.1, also is rated capable of 14x250 kg up to 430 km Lo-Lo. If Viggen is really able to score 850 km with 1800 km Lo-Lo it's the winner, if its range is 450 km with 1300 kg it's on average.

Gripen and Draken have respectly 740 km Hi-lo-hi with 900 kg and 550 km Lo-lo with 1500 kg. So as ferry range, attack range, interceptor (Gripen:90' at 500 km CAP) they are rougly on pair with Viggen, that performed as well 1,5 hours CAP. I don't see any advantage for Viggen as endurance, A/A range and also A/S mission range.PDF document talks of a little more than 2000km ferry range (1800 with 4 AAMs), so how hell 1300km comes from?

Even with an aux tank it could not improve this figure to 2600km -half of them with 1800 kg. This is just 1500 l compared to 5700 internal.

To me it resemble Tornado overclaimgs as well: they were rated capable to reach 2,2 mach and 1400 km with 3600 kg, 1800 km with 1800 kg, even 2500 km with 1100 kg! But wait, ferry range is 4,000 km so these figures are simply untrue. Mach 2, lather in 90's was discovered that Tornado IDS is not able to reach it at all. As range, Tornado IDS of AMI, from 1000 km needed three air refuelling to reach Kuwait, and this with just 2000kg and flyng at medium heigts. They should had reached Kuwait City without AR and with 4t., Baghad with 2 ton, so let's see how inflated these teorical numbers are.--Stefanomencarelli 20:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

PS the last developements of Viggens,visible on Goebel site:http://www.vectorsite.net/avvig.html shoudl had been retained. So i think someone should work about this stuff. There is no reason to cut it by article.


 * As far as the range goes, it probably depends a lot on whether the external centerline tank was included. Our JA 37s ALWAYS had the tank mounted. It was not permanently bolted in, but it was always there. I don't even think the centerline mount was wired for any missiles, just 'dumb' rockets or bombs. The SK 37, to my knowledge, had the external tank PERMANENTLY fixed to compensate for the removed internal tank where the 2nd cockpit was installed. AJ/SF/SHs probably had a little more flexibility in weapons load on the centerline pod, so the external tank was more optional thank on the JA and SK. I hope this add to the confusion in trying to figure out the range of the different models. T96 grh 17:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Having said this, it's clear that there is no way to make such differences as range with or without ext tank. 1500 l. are only 25-30% compared to internal reserve. So i'd grab the lower value (500 km with 1300 kg) as reliable, and eventually search confirms for greater ranges. If CAP A2A were around 1,5 hours it's impossible to have a 2600 km combat endurance, in pratical conditions. --Ric1999 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The 7 minute range on full AB is what I heard from pilots in my squadron as well, so I guess that is confirmed. That mainly comes from the poor fuel consumption of the turbojet at full AB. However, that is a very limited statement on what the Viggen can do. It does standing start to 10,000m in 100s. Now, to launch Rb 05 or Skyflash against incoming red bombers, I don't think the pilots were expected to fly at max AB for much more than 3 minutes. In that time, you're more than halfway out in the Baltic Sea to launch missiles (Swedish radars had/have range to St. Petersburg). Return back at Mach~0.8 to conserve fuel.


 * The lo-lo range numbers with heavy load does not surprise me. The Viggen was designed specifically for this.


 * The Tornado numbers make sense if you start thinking about not carrying stuff under the wings but just under the fuselage. The wings are quite slender and airflow is easily disrupted from bombs and missiles an dsuch.


 * Stefano, I'll work on incorporating the 'vectorsite' info I the article since I goofed up about 'copyright violation'. Sorry about that. T96 grh 02:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Radar Warning Receiver
The radar warning receiver in the article is mentioned to made by SATT. However, I have not been able to find any information in Swedish literature or on the web of what SATT is or who the manufacturer is. This only other place it is mentioned happens to be the Italian Viggen webpage, with substantial contributions from Stefanomencarelli. Can anyone shed a light on this, or perhaps Stefano himself? T96 grh 18:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The system is made by SATT.

a complete overview about EW:

''* Sweden

Ericsson Radio Systems offers the Erijammer series of ECM pods. The Type A100 is used for the Swedish Air Force for fire-control radar jamming and radar operator training, and the Type 200 is the SAF's standard tactical jammer for the Viggen. The Erijammer B100 is under development as a training pod for surveillance radar jamming, and the Type 300 is a self-protection pod for the JAS39.

Philips Elektronikindustrier AB (PEAB) has been making airborne dispensers since the late 1950s. The BOZ 3 is a chaff dispenser used for EW training, mounted on SAF Lansens and Learjets. The BOZ 100 series is the current chaff/flare dispenser pod used on the Tornado and French Jaguars. The domestic equivalent for the Viggen is designated BOX 9. The BOP 300 is a new generation of internal and scab-mounted dispensers, evidently intended for the JAS39 and exports. The other member of this computerised BO 300 family is the helicopter version, the BOH 300.

In addition, SATT Electronics produces the AR.765 RWR for the AB.206A, the AQ.31 jammer pod for the Viggen and the AQ.800 jammer pod for EW training. SRA Communications reportedly produces the Type KA jammer pod for the Viggen and the Type 2000 jammer for subsonic aircraft. ''

So SATT Electronics is an avionic company of Saab group, and more, there is all the electronic staff Viggen had: Type 200 ECM, BOX 9 dispenser, AQ.31 jammer pod, KA Jammer pod.

No mention about RWR, but this not matter. Not all the systems are mentioned.

(Waiting for Goebel no-copyv.integrations, of course).--Stefanomencarelli 19:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just trying to figure out what Satt (not SATT) is/was. Apparently is one of the smaller companies that went through numerous changes of ownership, mergers, splits etc. during the latter half of the 1900s. It apparently started out as the private company Elektronlund ~50 years ago. Ownership walked through (German) AEG, Alfa Laval, Ahlsell, Tetra Pak, ABB, Celsius and finally ended up under the Saab name umbrella. I really have no clue which company to link to, and surely Italian defense contractors must have had similar name- and ownership changes during those times as well.

From the link, the RWR really should not have been manufactured under the name Satt, but instead Elektronlund (or maybe Satt-Elektronlund), since the JA that got the RWR did not have it before 1977.

The weird thing is that Satt Electronics really was not specialized in avionics. They made (and still make) automatic control systems for manufacturing plants.

Also, please don't use the abbreviation PEAB for Philips Electronics AB. PEAB is a main contractor for house and building construction (like Skanska).

f you look at the main page, I have pretty much finished the avionics part and will start on the armament section (when time permits). T96 grh 21:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio?
Vectorsite: "In 1992 the Swedish government approved a program to upgrade a total of 115 AJ 37s, SF 37s, and SH 37s to a multirole "AJS 37" configuration, with "AJS" standing for "Attack / Jakt / Spaning". The follow-on SAAB 39 Gripen was already flying by that time, but development was proving troublesome, with defense cutbacks following the end of the Cold War also promoting delays. Viggens needed to be upgraded to keep them current and capable until the Gripen could enter squadron service."

Latest edit: "In 1992 the Swedish government approved a program to upgrade a total of 115 AJ 37s, SF 37s, and SH 37s to a multirole "AJS 37" configuration, with "AJS" standing for "Attack / Jakt / Spaning". The follow-on SAAB 39 Gripen was already flying by that time, but development was proving troublesome, with defense cutbacks following the end of the Cold War also promoting delays. Viggens needed to be upgraded to keep them current and capable until the Gripen could enter squadron service."

This isn't research, this is "verbatim" copying. FWIW Bzuk 19:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC).

Goebel vectorsite is PUBLIC DOMAIN. Period.--Stefanomencarelli 18:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Putting this source down as an external link is fine, quoting from it and citing a reference from it is fine, dumping text "word for word" into the body of the article may not be a violation of copyright but it isn't the usual standard for writing articles in Wikipedia. Bzuk 22:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC).

On the contrary, Wikipedia has a *large* amount of articles that comes from other parts (starting from famous english ency of 1911), as the important issue is *only* to have no copyright problems, regardless if they are written by wikipedians or pasted by another place.

Content that violates any copyright will be deleted

That's not the case with Goebel site. And AFAIK, the problem with Wikipedia IS the presence of tons of (real) copyviols.

Having said this, it's now very difficult to think that,  *regardless* what i do here i am still 'welcomed', and these critics are not 'personalized' against myself (=mobbing). The reasons are too many and always goods: if it's not grammar or syntax it's NNPOV, or (non-existent) copyviols, or non verifiable sources, or even 'not praxis' (while thousands of articles are written with this 'praxis', the only time i used this to not make 'grammar herrors' is oops, not praxis).

Even when the sources are verifiables, my stuff is more and more deleted as 'tolerance' is running out (See CF-104 and B-50). Even if the amount of stuff written by myself is around the half of what i wrote as average two months ago so to not make too mant troubles to my 'collabotaros' to correct them.

Such waste of time and efforts to have such 'rewards'...

PS: IN SPITE of the many comment against my correct use of Wikipedia, this morning i found the SM.93 page []with a draw representing the G.222...and Daimler-Benz DB605 having mere 460 hp..obviousely who presented such draw as 'SM.93' had no interest to see that it had TWO engines and not one, nor he had seen the photos in the link about this unic and almost unknow aircraft..just like happened with Baugher site info.. but obviousely the 'man hunt' is run with me as prey... --Stefanomencarelli 07:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Canard(french)=Duck=Vigg(swedish)
The trivia on the duck should IMHO be in the article since it links together the intentional naming of the aircraft Viggen by linking together the name of a swedish duck (Vigg) with the french word for a duck of the first Canard aircraft in Sweden. The name was dually appropriate since it could also point to mythology.


 * Please do not simply revert the changes. You've reverted the trivia tag, as Trivia sections are deprecated. While everything you say on the language my be true, it is Original Research if you are basing it on your personal knowledge of the languages. In addition, your claim of "intentional naming" definitely needs to be sourced. Finally, I removed the part on mythology because other users were changing it. Again, without sources, there is know way for someone not familiar with the language to verify which is corrct. "Thunderbolt" is mentioned in the Lead, and, assuming that is the correct rtranslation of Viggen (per my aviation sources it is), that should be enough for now. Btw, thanks for standing up to Stepho - he is relentless, and it takes the efforts of many editors to keep him in check. - BillCJ 18:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry, I did not mean to remove the trivia tag.

The Vigg-duck-canard naming was definitely intentional and should be mentioned in at least one of the Swedish books on the Viggen. However, I don't have it here at home in the US, but hope that someone in Sweden might. The Thunderbolt translation of (Åsk)vigg is correct and it was the other part of naming the aircraft with reference to Thor's hammer Mjolnir in Nordic mythology as mentioned by Urban Fredriksson on. I'm doing my best on Stefano. Hopefully he'll learn one day how to properly add material to english webpages. T96 grh 19:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * YOu might try asking User:User:LarRan. He's edited moslty on the JAS 39 page, but I do believe he is in Sweden. It's worth a shot. I't OK about the Trivia tag. I could have done that as a separate edit, but I get carried away editing sometimes, and keep doing more things before I save the edit. - BillCJ 23:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't help being a tad skeptical to the idea that the Swedish military intentionally wanted to associate a name of a fighter aircraft with a small, cute water bird. Yes, the literal meaning of vigg is both "(thunder)bolt" and "tufted duck", but I don't see any references that confirm that it actually is supposed to interpreted as anything but the former. If it can't be confirmed (with a reliable source), it should be removed as linguistic trivia.
 * Peter Isotalo 07:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Saab engineers named the Viggen, not the military. It is mentioned in at least one book (in Swedish) on the Viggen. However, I don't have access to any in USA where I live. T96 grh (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if it was Saab that named it, it seems very odd to allude to the name of a species of diving duck when introducing a modern multirole jet-powered combat aircraft. Especially considering that the etymological connection to "thunderbolt" is very distant. If you could name the title of the book, though, it might be possible for me or someone else living in Sweden now to reference the statement. You should be able to find it quite easily if you use Libris.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Look no further than the AA-missile "BAMSE" (cartoon bear who refuses to use violence) for odd names in the Swedish military industry. It's simply a tradition that started before Volvo Suggan (the sow). BP OMowe (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The name 'Viggen' refers to the lightning bolts produced by Thor's hammer:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.221 (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Isn't CK37 a digital computer?
It's stated in the text that CK37 is a analog computer. I think that's wrong. See Sven Stridsberg's book 'Viggen' page 38: "Under 1963 inledde man på SAAB laboratorietester med digitaldator, och dessa utvidgades till systemprov under augusti 1964. Fram till 1966 tillverkades på SAAB tio prototyper av datorn, Central Kalkylator (CK37),...". Approximate translation: "During 1963 SAAB begun laboratory tests with a digital computer, and these was followed by system tests in August 1964. Untill 1966 SAAB made ten prototypes of the computer, Central Calculator (CK37),..." I think this proves that the CK37 is digital and that the text needs to be changed.Olert (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I found a good source in english language that proves that the CK37 is digital: http://www.datasaab.se/Papers/Articles/Viggenck37.pdf Olert (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cockpit
I think this article needs a separate section on cockpit/ ergonomics, which even in a jet of this era might reasonably be regarded as of equal importance to the avionics. I was trying to use existing detail to create something. Maybe someone more knowledgeable could add a general cockpit description to which varaint detal could be added? e.g. canopy design, seat angled back by 19 degrees, centre stick, throttle location, types of display, etc etc? Just an idea. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggest some or all of the following:

"A detailed schematic diagram of the layout of the original JAS-37 cockpit may be found in the book “Control in the Sky - The Evolution and History of the Aircraft Cockpit ” by L F E Coombs (Pen and Sword Books, 2005, ISBN: 1844151484). It may be seen that the cockpit contains about 150 different control and displays. The displays appear to be almost exclusively the traditional analogue type although there is an electronic HUD. The HUD is used as a precision landing aid, making it possible to aim just 30 m in from the threshold. The forward display area is dominated by the central large Horizontal Situation Indicator (HSI) with its integral altitude warning light. To the left are the Attitude, Altimeter and Airspeed / MACH displays and to the right are 12 smaller displays including a clock, g-meter, destination indicator, standby instruments, r.p.m. indicator, distance indicator, E.P.R indicator and Fuel indicator.

The ejection seat is the Raketstol fpl 37 and is the last Saab designed seat in service. A derivitive of the SAAB-105 trainer seat, which in turn was developed from the J-35 Draaken seat, this seat has many advanced features. The seat is equipped with the KFF-53 parachute system, arm nets, leg restraints and stabilizer chute. The handle next to the head-rest is for making the seat safe. Fired by either of the arm rest handles, the seat deploys nets from behind the seat backrest via lanyards to the front edge of the seat. Leg restraints hold the lower limbs in place. This seat was tested at the USAF sled test facility at Holloman AFB to 700KEAS. Due to the low level flying for which the Swedish Air Force is known, the seat is optimized for low altitude, high speed ejections. Low speed capability is limited to 75 KM/h on the runway. The seat is angled back by 19 to help protect the pilot from g-forces.

The pilot flies with a centre stick and left side throttle. The hands-on-throttle–and-stick (HOTAS controls include trim, autopilot disengage, event maker and trigger (on the stick) and ECM switch and seeker uncage (on the throttle). Adjacent to the throttle is a separate radar joystick.

There are dedicated warning caption panels left and right. On the right console panel are numerous dedicated controls and indicators, including weapons and missile controls, nav panel, oxygen on/off, windshield de-fogging, IFF control, lighting controls. On the left console panel are numerous dedicated controls and indicators, including radar controls, canopy handle, landing gear handle, radio controls and cabin pressure indicator.

Photographs of the original layout of the cockpit may be found at: http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/501-600/walk519_Viggen_Toll/walk519.htm."

The cockpit has now been extensively updated with modern electronic multifunction displays, although the basic layout remains the same. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If the book talks about the JAS-37, I would not trust that as reputable since there was no JAS-variant of the 37 unless you count the ESS-JAS 37 (#37-22) that flight tested the avionics of JAS 39 Gripen. The cockpit of the JA 37 was significantly upgraded from the original AJ variant and more so to the JA 37D in the 1990's. 204.111.164.33 (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a perfectly vaild point. The book cited does not actually "talk" about anything, but simply reproduces original Saab layout drawings for the "AJS 37" which are probably of the orignal (possibly even prototype) model- I was just describing what the pictures show. My aim was to suggest a basic cockpit description upon which variant/ upgrade details could then be added by those with more specialised knowledge. Perhaps there ought to be a separate linked article for "cockpit design"? Wittlessgenstein (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing is that the cockpit design of the Viggen was nothing unusual compared to similar aircraft. It was the electronics inside that were among the best. Therefore a separate cockpit section would be quite meaningless. If you do want to add material on cockpit design, do that on this page: Cockpit   T96 grh (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the rapid feedback T96. I can offer no opinion on whether ot not the electronics inside the JAS-37 were indeed "among the best", but I'm alarmed that you consider that a description of the cockpit might be "quite meaningless". Although most military jet aircraft cockpits may be 95% similar, it is the 5% difference that may make them more or less easy to pilot and thus more or less likely to be operationally successful. Manufacturers and Air Forces have to consider massive agendas for fleet commonality and cross-type training. I am staggered that many contributing editors, while arguing incessantly over cost and aerodynamic performance, psy little or no attention to cockpit design, particularly when nearly all modern jets are single seat. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for barging in, but I have to agree with the earlier comments regarding the cockpit section as of marginal importance to the overall article. A few brief notes about its unique elements would be appropriate but the reason that this article is so large (I would say "bloated") is that it was enlarged as a result of one editor's attempts to add substantial detail from a number of magazine sources. Adding such cockpit details simply increases the overall size of the article and takes it farther away from the encyclopedic form. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Well, I can't say that I have any extensive experience on cockpit design, but it could be that I found the Viggen cockpit nothing exceptional just because it was not exceptionally cluttered like some Russian aircraft I've had the opportunity to sit in. Come to think about it, Saab did use their aircraft cockpit design for the 900 and 9000 car models (or at least claim to have done so). The night panel feature on modern Saab cars apparently originated in the novel Saab 340 cockpit design where indicator lights are normally unlit but light up in the event of needing attention (as opposed to the other way around with an entire Christmas tree of lights blaring at the same time). Anyhow, it's an interesting issue that I'd love to see a separate article on (or expanded Cockpit article). I can get you in touch with a doctoral student friend of mine that do research in this area if you are looking for more scholarly reference material. T96 grh (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * T96 - I would agree that some Russian aircraft cockpits still seem to suffer from the "explosion of instruments" which began in the 1950s/1960s, with or without added Yuletide distractions. That's a topic worthy of note in it's own right, although I'd guess even more difficult to introduce into the relevant existing Wiki articles. I can well imagine the cringing Saab cocpkit engineers who have to toe the line dreamt up by imaginative automotive marketing executives. But yes, I think Saab are probably unique in their product range. Generally, however, I'd say the so-called "technology cascade" effect of these huge aircraft development projects is a convenient myth. The work of your doctoral student friend sounds very interesting - also Wikipedian/able, I wonder? Wittlessgenstein (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Bzuk - Thanks for your opinions, with which I tend to agree, although it seems unfortunate that useful material gets left out because of earlier mistakes. I would propose a brief cockpit section with only the most salient features. I agree we are aiming for an encyclopedia not an Aircrew Manual. But if my interest was cars (even by Saab) I think I'd like to know what the driving controls looked like! Wittlessgenstein (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose a new Cockpit/Ergonomics sub-section as follows:

"The displays in the original cockpit were all of the traditional analogue/mechanical type with the exception of an electronic HUD which could be used as a precision landing aid.

Original layout drawings show the forward display area dominated by a central large Horizontal Situation Indicator (HSI) with its integral altitude warning light. To the left are the Attitude, Altimeter and Airspeed / MACH displays and to the right are twelve smaller displays including a clock, g-meter, destination indicator, standby instruments, R.P.M. indicator, distance indicator, E.P.R indicator and Fuel indicator.

The ejection seat is the Raketstol fpl 37 and is the last Saab designed seat in service. A derivative of the SAAB-105 trainer seat, the seat is optimized for low altitude, high speed ejections. Low speed capability is limited to 75 KM/h on the runway. The seat is angled back by 19 degress to help counter g-forces.

The pilot flies with a centre stick and left side throttle. The hands-on-throttle–and-stick HOTAS controls include trim, autopilot disengage, event maker and trigger (on the stick) and ECM switch and seeker un-cage (on the throttle). Adjacent to the throttle is a separate radar joystick.

There are dedicated warning caption panels each side of the pilots legs. On the right console panel are numerous dedicated controls and indicators, including weapons and missile controls, nav panel, oxygen on/off, windshield de-fogging, IFF control, lighting controls. On the left console panel are numerous dedicated controls and indicators, including radar controls, canopy handle, landing gear handle, radio controls and cabin pressure indicator.

A detailed schematic diagram of the original cockpit layout may be found in “Control in the Sky” by L F E Coombs. Photographs of the original cockpit may be found at: http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/501-600/walk519_Viggen_Toll/walk519.htm"

Any comments or proposals to shorten? Thanks. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Cockpit Image(s)
It seems quite difficult to source any image which does not invoke copyvio. Any suggestions gratefully received. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

B class review
I noticed that an editor asked for a B class review on this article in October 2007 and perhaps this should be progressed. I have two comments which I think might help.
 * 1) Glancing through the article there is a mixture of past and present tense used e.g. 'is powered by....' As the Viggen is a retired type this should all be altered to past tense.
 * 2) The armament section has variant sub headers, it looks like there are two variant sections in the contents box. Would it be better to merge the armament info with their relevant variant? Hope this is helpful, I am not a Viggen expert so I can't vouch for the facts but it looks good to me!. Nimbus227 (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed everything to past tense. There were two main variants of the 37 Viggen. The AJ (with subvariants SH, SJ and SK) and the newer JA which had much modernized avionics. I could not immediately see an easier way to write the armaments section unless the entire article were to be divided up into the different variants of the Viggen instead as of now - 'design and development' (with subsections), 'operational history' etc. T96 grh (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did some work tonight intending to give it a 'B'rating and then noticed that someone rated it some days ago. Pretty good now although I think it is a little heavy in places (too much detail?). Anyway, a good result. Nimbus227 (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why the resistance to ambiguous names?
The Saab 35 Draken has an ambiguous name; "kite" or "dragon", so the Swedes seems to have a tradition of ambiguous names. Jane's (the old one because Viggen is no longer in production) has one translation but it doesn't excludes wedge or "tufted duck".


 * The reasoning for the Draken article was that the name was intentionally ambiguous, but not this one. However, when I look through the discussion here and over at Saab 35 Draken, I've notice that there are no detailed, serious sources to support any standpoint other than the Jane's reference to "thunderbolt". The definition "wedge" for vigg is as far as I know fairly archaic. It's not listed in the dictionary of Nationalencyklopedin, for example.
 * What need to agree on, though, is that we're not translating a Swedish word as though it were a dictionary entry, but a name that has been given with a specific meaning in mind. Listing the meaning of the various Swedish homonyms is not relevant in this article. For example, if a non-English edition of Wikipedia described the film or novel called Fluke, it would irrelevant to give translations for all definitions like the anchor detail, the fish, the flatworm or the part of a whale's tail, but only "stroke of luck".
 * Peter Isotalo 00:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point Peter, but bad example. The novel "Fluke" was about whales, the fact that one of them even has the words "Bite Me" on its fluke being a significant detail in the story. The double meaning of the word that is the title is entirely intentional. Vicarious Tendril (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

212.181.151.126 (talk): Vigg means wedge which in turn gave name to the bird Vigg. These are the correct translations of Vigg. Point is that if anything, it does not mean Thunderbolt, because the swedish word for that is Åskvigg, (litterally means "Thunderwedge"). —Preceding undated comment added 15:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC).

Explanation needed for SF/SK variants.

 * The SF/SK entry in the "Variants" section does not include an explanation for what they are and what they were built for, just that they lacked radar. Vicarious Tendril (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

First fighter with a canard-delta wing configuration?
It seems so to me. There are many delta-winged fighters that have canards but are otherwise tailless (i.e. canard-deltas), which I think makes it worth mentioning which one was the first. Below is an almost complete list, in order of maiden flight. There are some Dassault Mirage variants not mentioned below that have had canards (cataloging Mirage derivatives is confusing!), but the project for the first of them, the "Milan", began in 1968. Nothing seems to be earlier than the 1967 maiden flight of the Viggen. What do you think? Vicarious Tendril (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Saab 37 Viggen
 * IAI Kfir (aka F21 Kfir)
 * Atlas Cheetah
 * Dassault Rafale
 * BAe EAP
 * IAI Lavi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicarious Tendril (talk • contribs) 13:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Saab JAS 39 Gripen
 * Rockwell-MBB X-31
 * Eurofighter Typhoon
 * Chengdu J-10
 * MiG Project 1.44 (aka MiG MFI)

Use of "the" in translating names
See Talk:Saab 35 Draken and Talk:Saab JAS 39 Gripen for previous consensuses in Swedish aircraft articles about translating the article with the names. - BilCat (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Article has been moved back to pre-controversy edit. Editors have been asked to direct their attention here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC).


 * It is pretty clear that this is a case of someone who knows Swedish well, but does not understand English word usage. The definite article "the" is not used in English in this circumstance, even though it would be in Swedish and since this article is in English the "the" should be omitted. - Ahunt (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "The griffin" would imply it's a specific griffin being referred to, not just a generic name. - BilCat (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly, and this is what's special about these names of Swedish fighter aircraft – it sounds just as funny in Swedish before you are used to it. As you can see at Talk:Saab JAS 39 Gripen, the consensus there is that the form with 'the' is the correct one. John  Anderson   (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've never seen it translated that way in an English publication, and that is what we go by - what the reliable sources say, for all Swedish fighters. As far as I can tell, your source does not relate to the fighter specifically, so it's not applicable here. - BilCat (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What if we add both sources, and show it with and without the definite article? Would that be an acceptable compromise? One's a gramatrical source, and the other a military aviation source - that should cover all the bases, and show that the tranlataion is disputed. - BilCat (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've found an interesting source: On the wwwgripen.com website this PDFG page discusses the heraldic signigicance of the Gripen. "The Gripen (Griffin in English) is a mythical creature with the face, beak, talons and wings of an eagle and the body of a lion." Note that the "the" is used with "griffin" in the article in several places, as that is correct english usage. - BilCat (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait a second here, we don't abide by some impersonator pretending to be BilbousCantankerous, as it is clear that any effort to pretend to be concilliatory has shown you up! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC).


 * Shhh, you'll disrupt my plan to lull him into complacency. :) - BilCat (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A name doesn't normally have an article, but the names of Swedish fighter planes are in definite form and must therefor be translated with 'the' or you will not get a correct translation. It's not an English name for the plane, it's an explanation of what the Swedish name would mean in English, and therefor the name should be translated literaly.


 * To write "the gripen" as in "The Gripen (Griffin in English) is a mythical creature ..." is acctually like writing "the the griffin". Have any of you seen the movie Mickey Blue Eyes? There the character played by Hugh Grant explains why it is wrong to name a restaurant "The La Trattoria" – it's the same here. "Gripen" is the definite form of the word grip. What is the definite form of griffin? John  Anderson   (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I take you don't support the compromise. Fine, then you have no consensus to support your changes either here or at JAS 39, and the versions without the definite article should be restored. - BilCat (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I could support a compromise, but perhaps not the one you suggested. We should keep discussing. Do you mean you just drop the subject because of that? John  Anderson   (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me reiterate: Every aviation book I've ever read that covers Swedish fighters tranlates the names without the definte article. I'll cite all the ones I have if necessary. That's how WP:RS works. It's not up to use to determine what is true or not, we just report what is in the reliable sources on the topic. Personal knowledge of Swedish is OR and is not accpetable as a source. A general Swedish dictionary or lexicon can prove that "Gripen" is in the definitive form, but it can't prove that Swedish fighter names should take the definitive when translated into English. That's how WP works, like it or not. - BilCat (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * So you prefer to be wrong, just because the sources are? If something is in definite form, it is in definite form. John  Anderson   (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1988–89 refers to Thunderbolt, not the Thunderbolt. Please provide a definative english language source that refers to the aircraft as THE Thunderbolt - otherwise, if you cannot, agree, then the translation should be removed.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have provided a source which shows the name means 'the Thunderbolt', not just 'Thunderbolt'. Why does the source have to be a text about the aircraft? John  Anderson   (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Because in English we don't use wording for aircraft names that way, therefore a ref has to address this particular usage to be relevant. - Ahunt (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Please keep in mind when reading the above that and  are the same person after a checkuser done at their homewiki, svwp, so take lightly on their comments. GameOn (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Swedish combat aircraft are named in definite form, while the rest is not. For instance Saab Safir is in indefinite form, while Saab Viggen is in definite. That the English sources used haven't picked this up simply mean they are less reliable than the Swedish sources which should take precedence. BP OMowe (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)