Jump to content

JetMads 1/32 Viggen


Scotsman

Recommended Posts

13 per year and that is more than one every month. That was about the same with almost every air force around the world in those years mostly due to engine problems, which are really rare lately as they are far more reliable now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Phartycr0c said:

I'm not sure Jetmads are shipping in order number.

Iv'e inquired about mine 10696, and been told its coming out to me mid November. 

 

Ah well, Iv'e waited this long! 

I don’t wish to speculate about what the hold up is, but they appear to keep changing the goalposts with shipping dates. 
I was originally told beginning of October, then the end of October, now I’m getting the same “Mid November” reply. 
At least that is until mid November arrives and it moves again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add my experience: I received my first kit and it looks great. I also was in touch with them about the corrected parts. They really intend to deliver a great job and this means they will send the corrected parts separately to me but not combined with the second kit I ordered. That kit will have the corrected parts in it.  So, I thought to suggest they can add the parts for my first kit to the second one, but they explained that would be not wise as the weight limit is 2000 gram and the kits are just below it. So, those additional parts come in a separate smaller box.

Anyway, I think Jetmads has entered the arena and this is no doubt a good learning curve for them to manage the exciting future releases!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mr.T said:

To add my experience: I received my first kit and it looks great. I also was in touch with them about the corrected parts. They really intend to deliver a great job and this means they will send the corrected parts separately to me but not combined with the second kit I ordered. That kit will have the corrected parts in it.  So, I thought to suggest they can add the parts for my first kit to the second one, but they explained that would be not wise as the weight limit is 2000 gram and the kits are just below it. So, those additional parts come in a separate smaller box.

Anyway, I think Jetmads has entered the arena and this is no doubt a good learning curve for them to manage the exciting future releases!!


What corrected parts?  I thought any parts were already corrected before the kits were sent out.  The only issues I’ve heard of are with broken parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Treehugger said:

Btw, I saw this article not too long ago, and it was pointed out that, there were literally hundreds of Swedish pilots that had died during the cold war, I thought that was such a large number. I do not currently have a source link for this.

 

Yes that is true, there is a rembrance room at the Defence HQ in Stockholm with all the names and stuff.

 

SwAF had the same rules and regulations in peacetime as would apply for a situation of war. So, at the beginning they flew 10 meters above the water and 20 above land.. (Later upped by 10m each though). They trained hard. With probably very realistic expecations. There are some good documentaries, I´ll see if they are availble in English.

But in the case of a Soviet attack, the time the Air Force would last (and same for the Navy) against a massive invasion force was not many days..

 

But for the attackers like the A 32As and later AJ 37s, if there was a heads-up in decent time, that would give them a good chance to cause very heavy casulties against such a force. The Navy expected a run or maybe two, to mine an area or make one torpedo attack. The mask the ships and bring out the SMGs for the crew..

 

It was hardly very bright expectaions of what the future would hold but do as much damage as possible ina  short time span and then hope that NATo was also involved and had some reinforcements to send..

 

6 hours ago, frank83 said:

13 per year and that is more than one every month. That was about the same with almost every air force around the world in those years mostly due to engine problems, which are really rare lately as they are far more reliable now.

 

 

Not really. Sweden had much higher attrition rates than the USAF when compared. When that was realized, kinda at the beginning fo the AJs going operational iirc - it was also found out that the SwAF was doing it a little too much. You could save both lives and equipment with quite a few more clever things.

 

Sure, aircraft were different in the 50s, 60s, 70s - but the SwAF had very high attrition rates - by a combination of pushing it very, very far - and a little too far. Which was steered up over time.

One third of the A 32As were iwritten off in accidents for example. It became much better during the AJs´ introduction and much better yet during the JAs´ introduction.

 

The threat was very much real though and there was not many other options. Joining the NATO maybe? But NATO actually benefitted from Sweden NOT doing that - it was a huge buffer with a very strong defence to overcome for the Reds - but with a very hard excuse attacking.. (The strategic position made it kinda hard not to in the case of something like what happens in "Red Storm Rising")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dave Williams said:


What corrected parts?  I thought any parts were already corrected before the kits were sent out.  The only issues I’ve heard of are with broken parts.

I guess it may be the damaged/broken parts that are being referred to. Two parts have been explained to be flawed in their last update and Jetmads said all are being produced again, which is what they say is the reason for their slow shipments. They have also said no flawed parts ever have been shipped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/27/2021 at 7:45 PM, mattcour said:

I am planning to make a diorama of the Viggen the way it was mostly seen during the Cold War. In a hidden spot by a highway, concealed between trees and probably with some snow etc.

 

Question: Anybody any idea where I can find 1:32 Swedish ground crew and maybe ground equipment such as a start-up generator and/or a tanker truck?

Any visual references could be useful here too because there may be others willing to do the same.

Thanks in advance...

Maybe that you will find this interesting.

 

Motiv-Provflygplan-JA-37-6-under-markser

Edited by frank83
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/28/2021 at 6:53 PM, Paramedic said:

 

 

 

SwAF had the same rules and regulations in peacetime as would apply for a situation of war. So, at the beginning they flew 10 meters above the water and 20 above land.. (Later upped by 10m each though).

As a fighter pilot, I find this tactically interesting.

The SwAF wasn't alone in applying this doctrine. Most NATO air forces also trained at extremely low altitude in the hope of penetrating a well developed and layered integrated air defense network. Certainly this was a factor in attrition during training. The very real threats of terrain impact, low altitude GLOC, and bird ingestion were all factors in attrition.

I was surprised to see many NATO air forces still training at extremely low altitude even into to 90's. During a Checkered Flag deployment, I was flying as A/A escort for Italian Tornados that flew their low level through the Alps at 80 ft. At such an extremely low altitude, all you can essentially do is not hit the ground. You have very little bandwidth to work your onboard systems, stay in formation, threat react, etc, because the constant threat of hitting the ground is your primary concern. While certainly impressive, the tactical utility of operating at such a low altitude is limited. Our Italian friends made fun of us at first for staying at 500 ft, until they saw our mission effectiveness and survivability was much better. Even into Desert Storm, several of our coalition partners insisted early in the war on operating at low altitude, even though the primary threat was from AAA; putting them in the heart of that threat- and after significant combat losses, changed their tactics to mirror our operation at medium altitude, above 10,000 ft.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

  

Edited by Pete Fleischmann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Paramedic said:

 

Yes that is true, there is a rembrance room at the Defence HQ in Stockholm with all the names and stuff.

 

SwAF had the same rules and regulations in peacetime as would apply for a situation of war. So, at the beginning they flew 10 meters above the water and 20 above land.. (Later upped by 10m each though). They trained hard. With probably very realistic expecations. There are some good documentaries, I´ll see if they are availble in English.

But in the case of a Soviet attack, the time the Air Force would last (and same for the Navy) against a massive invasion force was not many days..

 

But for the attackers like the A 32As and later AJ 37s, if there was a heads-up in decent time, that would give them a good chance to cause very heavy casulties against such a force. The Navy expected a run or maybe two, to mine an area or make one torpedo attack. The mask the ships and bring out the SMGs for the crew..

 

It was hardly very bright expectaions of what the future would hold but do as much damage as possible ina  short time span and then hope that NATo was also involved and had some reinforcements to send..

 

 

Not really. Sweden had much higher attrition rates than the USAF when compared. When that was realized, kinda at the beginning fo the AJs going operational iirc - it was also found out that the SwAF was doing it a little too much. You could save both lives and equipment with quite a few more clever things.

 

Sure, aircraft were different in the 50s, 60s, 70s - but the SwAF had very high attrition rates - by a combination of pushing it very, very far - and a little too far. Which was steered up over time.

One third of the A 32As were iwritten off in accidents for example. It became much better during the AJs´ introduction and much better yet during the JAs´ introduction.

 

The threat was very much real though and there was not many other options. Joining the NATO maybe? But NATO actually benefitted from Sweden NOT doing that - it was a huge buffer with a very strong defence to overcome for the Reds - but with a very hard excuse attacking.. (The strategic position made it kinda hard not to in the case of something like what happens in "Red Storm Rising")

 

2 minutes ago, Pete Fleischmann said:

As a fighter pilot, I find this tactically interesting.

The SwAF wasn't alone in applying this doctrine. Most NATO air forces also trained at extremely low altitude in the hope of penetrating a well developed and layered integrated air defense network. Certainly this was a factor in attrition during training. The very real threats of terrain impact, low altitude GLOC, and bird ingestion were all factors in attrition.

I was surprised to see many NATO air forces still training at extremely low altitude even into to 90's. During a Checkered Flag deployment, I was flying as A/A escort for Italian Tornados that flew their low level through the Alps at 80 ft. At such an extremely low altitude, all you can essentially do is not hit the ground. You have very little bandwidth to work your onboard systems, stay in formation, threat react, etc, because the constant threat of hitting the ground is your primary concern. While certainly impressive, the tactical utility of operating at such a low altitude is limited. Our Italian friends made fun of us at first for staying at 500 ft, until they saw our mission effectiveness and survivability was much better. Even into Desert Storm, several of our coalition partners insisted early in the war on operating at low altitude, even though the primary threat was from AAA, and after significant combat losses, changed their tactics to mirror our operation at medium altitude, above 10,000 ft.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

  

 

Paramedic, Pete,

 

I concur fully with your views gents. I was involved at the 'pointy end' (front line fighters) in the RAF during the cold war years (mid-70's to late 80's for me) and can definitely identify with the doctrine and scenarios that you both describe. However, I am relieved that the RAF, at least, recognised the advantage of the US method of operations and switched to these during the Gulf war, but who knows, NATO may one day have to adopt cold war tactics once more if circumstances dictate in any potential future ETO type conflict.

 

Derek

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pete Fleischmann said:

As a fighter pilot, I find this tactically interesting.

The SwAF wasn't alone in applying this doctrine. Most NATO air forces also trained at extremely low altitude in the hope of penetrating a well developed and layered integrated air defense network. Certainly this was a factor in attrition during training. The very real threats of terrain impact, low altitude GLOC, and bird ingestion were all factors in attrition.

I was surprised to see many NATO air forces still training at extremely low altitude even into to 90's. During a Checkered Flag deployment, I was flying as A/A escort for Italian Tornados that flew their low level through the Alps at 80 ft. At such an extremely low altitude, all you can essentially do is not hit the ground. You have very little bandwidth to work your onboard systems, stay in formation, threat react, etc, because the constant threat of hitting the ground is your primary concern. While certainly impressive, the tactical utility of operating at such a low altitude is limited. Our Italian friends made fun of us at first for staying at 500 ft, until they saw our mission effectiveness and survivability was much better. Even into Desert Storm, several of our coalition partners insisted early in the war on operating at low altitude, even though the primary threat was from AAA, and after significant combat losses, changed their tactics to mirror our operation at medium altitude, above 10,000 ft.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

  

Yeah I´m not saying the SwAF were the only ones. But it was deemed the best option at the time, seen to threats and what not. It was merely an explaiantion on why it was the way - it was..

The Viggens (the AJs here really) would mostly need to fly like this over quite flat terrain and over the baltic. And it was THE striking force for Sweden. It did not (necessarily) have the NATo behind it. There were very well thought out reasons and tactics for it all. It was hardly to "look cool flying fast and low".

 

https://aeroseum.se/british-pilot-and-viggen/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Paramedic said:

t. There were very well thought out reasons and tactics for it all. It was hardly to "look cool flying fast and low".


I think you may have missed my point. I understand that at the time, tactics were developed for the threat. It is the threat of an IADS and the inability to neutralize it that drives one into the low altitude regime. When the primary threat is from SAMs, (and their respective acquisition and target tracking radars) low altitude is the only way to isolate that threat above you- while utilizing terrain masking to combat the search and track radars. Low altitude also creates acquisition problems for SAMs flying an up and over profile. I also believe, as a tactian, that there are diminishing returns from operating at extremely low altitude even in the threat environment I describe. The attrition in training and the evolution of tactics in response to the evolving threat bear that out.

 

best

Pete

Edited by Pete Fleischmann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Paramedic said:

We are talking Aj 37 mainly, which main purpose was to launch RB 04Es at an invading Soviet fleet. Kinda makes sense with those tactics though. What should they do otherwise you mean?


climb to 500 ft.

At that altitude you can work your onboard systems, stay in formation, threat react, and not be 100% focused on not hitting the ground. You are still low enough to exploit the benefits of low altitude ingress. You can always descend lower if needed.

 

Attacking ships is difficult. There is nowhere to hide. I get that. If the employment weapon engagement zone (WEZ) for the RB 04 subsequently puts the launch aircraft in the WEZ for the ship it is attacking, then extremely low altitude is likely the only option.

 

For operation over land, I’d apply the above.

 

best

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got this email for JetMads, So will be patient and learn from the people who are building there kits along with working on other projects until mine shows up.

Dan

 

 

Hello,

 

You are receiving this email as an intoduction to a series of montlhy updates regarding the second edition of our 1:32 JA37 Viggen project. It is our policy and now a general practice to send all participants of a particular project monthly updates at the end of each month, aiming to give information on how the project is progressing.

 

We have quite a number of newcoming modelers as well as the re-visiting ones, therefore we would like to take the opportunity to express once again the way we operate.

 

We are producing 500 kits of each release and all parts of the kits are being manufactured in a serial production approach, meaning any particular part is produced as 500 copies and then we move on to produce the next part’s batch of500. That means no kit is completed as a set until the last batch of 500 parts is produced, only after when we can start shipping.

 

We spend quite a lot of time to do things right, as much as we can. We pay special attention to details and accuracy, taking every opportunity in order to improve the kits we produce. This may cause some delays from time to time, but it is our philosophy not to rush as we find producing accurate and good kits to be our first objective, rather than creating / producing flawed kits. Yes, we set targets and a timeline for each project, but when we have to choose between time and a product we are satisified with, the latter is always the winner.

 

Please be hereby reminded once again that this second edition of the Viggen is an extra run we have been intensively requested upon. It will progress in parallel with the production of the 1:32 Learjet 35 C-21A/U-36 and the pre-production works of the 1:32 X-3 Stiletto, which may from time to time affect the Viggen’s production pace. We are currently shipping out the first edition copies of the Viggen, most of them gone now. Our production team is now working on the moulds of the second edition kits and we will start 3D printing of parts in November. The target date for start of shipments for this second edition is January 2022. Producing thousands of parts for 500 kits with too many people involved and maintaining multiple projects simultaneously is a dynamic process and delays may occur as we have experienced before, however our production team is familiar with everything about the Viggen and we expect to stay on track as much as we can, in a world where things out of our control sometimes may interfere.

 

In order to make a kit better you are always welcome to place any ideas, contribute with historical references or forward suggestions for improvements.

We wish to thank you for joining in this second edition of our 1:32 JA37 Viggen project.

 

Kind Regards,

JETMADS Team

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/29/2021 at 7:46 PM, Pete Fleischmann said:


climb to 500 ft.

At that altitude you can work your onboard systems, stay in formation, threat react, and not be 100% focused on not hitting the ground. You are still low enough to exploit the benefits of low altitude ingress. You can always descend lower if needed.

 

Attacking ships is difficult. There is nowhere to hide. I get that. If the employment weapon engagement zone (WEZ) for the RB 04 subsequently puts the launch aircraft in the WEZ for the ship it is attacking, then extremely low altitude is likely the only option.

 

For operation over land, I’d apply the above.

 

best

Pete

 

Remember - the AJ 37 is a 60s aircraft with a 50s (well, almost late 40s) anti-shipping missile (updated however). It is not today.. Alot of the avionics were pretty way ahead of its time too - it was very early with a HUD even (done the Swedish way with the bare minium so not overcrowded compared with some others).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...