WI: SaaB VIGGEN & GRIPEN as NATO standard aircraft.

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
Like my previous thread about the Dassault Mirage, what events would allow Viggen's then Gripen's to become standard NATO aircraft.

Again they must also serve with Germany and Italy, and any NATO nation can manufacture them.

Cheers filers.
 

Driftless

Donor
Both are more adept at working from rough ground than most jets, aren't they? Highways, frozen pastures, that kind of thing.
 
Well it rather requires that Sweden joins NATO for starters...

True, but from a technical standpoint they seem a better fit than the Erdnagel...

HighFlight-Starfighter7.jpg


The Draken entered service in 1960 and could carry nearly 3000 kg of ordnance, had a much shorter take off run than the F-104, a top speed of Mach 2.2 and was far sexier.

I well remember when I was a student delivering a car to an RAF base in Lincolnshire back in the late 90s (can't remember which one).

The Austrian Air Force had just arrived on exercise and had ordered hire cars for the pilots. The other delivery drivers couldn't get why I was so excited when one flew over.

One of the Erks said: "Calm down, these things are so old they're clockwork."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUR3S8zCNHo
 
Single engine may concern us Canadians for the Norad role. We haven't had a single engine jet in that job since before the CF-100. The CF-104 was a strike bird for Europe, so the Viggen could do that job nicely.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Utter disaster?

The Viggen was a nice little point interceptor, but it had U.S. aerospace written all through its DNA, from the powerplant (Pratt & Whitney, don't you know) to the avionics.

No U.S. sources = No Viggen as we know it.

No UK/French replacement sources = No ATL Viggen.
 
True, but from a technical standpoint they seem a better fit than the Erdnagel...
The what? Ah. Need to at that to my synonym list. :)

Single engine may concern us Canadians for the Norad role. We haven't had a single engine jet in that job since before the CF-100. The CF-104 was a strike bird for Europe, so the Viggen could do that job nicely.

Err... the F104 WAS a single engine fighter, but we bought it anyway.
 
Viggen had some obvious advantages, such as STOL capacity (but no "rough ground" capacity), and some not so obvious such as the worlds best data link system (at least a generation ahead of everyone else) and a very pilot-friendly cockpit (minimum information to the pilot).

However, Viggen had to short range for the West German and Italian airforces, and no equipment for air refueling. It was adapted to the Swedish system of a lot of war bases (highways) with mobile supply teams, which lowered the need for range - but I doubt NATO would change their "a few big bases" strategy just to buy Viggen.

One possibility would be to make the original Swedish design slightly more ambitious Viggen with bigger fuel tanks and space to add a refueling probe. Then it would be more attractive for NATO.

But that doesn't change the fact that Viggen mainly was US hardware, assembled by Saab. No american president would allow his aircraft industry to loose such a big order to some swedes. IOTL a Swedish attempt to sell Viggen to India was blocked by the US.

Viggen, Draken, Ikv 91, Bv 206, Bkan 1a - Sweden manufactured weapons for use in Sweden, with swedish tactics. They wouldn't be as useful in protecting the Fulda Gap against several Guard Tank Armies.
 
They might have done it anyway, but could the Swedes have put it in for NBMR-3?

The result being that the RAF buys British built Viggens in place of the Harrier and Jaguar. They revive the Medway which IIRC was intended for the Viggen or the Spey. That might have logistical advantages as the RAF Phantoms and Buccaneers had Spey engines too.
 
Viggen had some obvious advantages, such as STOL capacity (but no "rough ground" capacity), and some not so obvious such as the worlds best data link system (at least a generation ahead of everyone else)

What could the STRIL-60 do that the Hughes MA-1 and SAGE didn't in 1957?

MA-1 when linked, could do everything except the takeoff and landing

Hughes MA-1 "Digitair"

The MA-1, a high-capacity digital computer, was designed to be digitally datalinked to the SAGE and was composed of 200 black electronic metal black boxes packed with thousands of tiny electronic parts and almost thirteen kilometers (eight miles) of wiring. All together it weighed 1145 kg (2520 lbs). The electronics were wrapped completely around the pilot except over him. It included automatic datalink reception and automatic flight control for navigation. Continuous position determination through the TACAN (tactical air navigation) station and automatic navigation to any of several reselected waypoints were possible. After takeoff, the system could fly the F-106 to the target, launch the missiles, monitor the return trip to base, and return controls to the pilot just before landing. The pilot could follow his progress on a round 20-cm (eight inch) tactical situation display that showed film strips of approaching air navigation maps. Each strip showed all major ground references up to about a 650-km (350-nm/400-mi) radius of the operations base. The strips could be changed when the F-106s operated from different bases. A small black delta wing symbol with a needle nose (the "bug") was superimposed on the map to indicate the position of the aircraft. The current range of the aircraft was represented by a circle on the map centered on the "bug." Under SAGE, the target was represented by an "X" bisected with an arrow. The navigation system could turn the aircraft on to an attack course, and markers on the radar scope approximated the range, azimuth, and elevation of the target. Once the target was obtained, the pilot could compelete the interception without SAGE.
http://www.456fis.org/Radar_&_Avionics.htm
 
The what? Ah. Need to at that to my synonym list. :)



Err... the F104 WAS a single engine fighter, but we bought it anyway.
We didn't buy them, we made them. The CF-104 was a modified version of the F-104 produced by Canadair.

Did you read my post? I wrote that the Viggen may not be seen as suitable for the NORAD role due to its single engine. I then wrote that the CF-104 was used as a strike bird in Europe, where it's single engjne is less of an issue. The CF-104 was not bought for the NORAD role, which has been a twin engine job since the 1950s (CF-100, CF-101, CF-188).

It is interesting how today the RCAF is considering the F-35 for NORAD as it would be the first single in that role.
 
We didn't buy them, we made them. The CF-104 was a modified version of the F-104 produced by Canadair.

Did you read my post? I wrote that the Viggen may not be seen as suitable for the NORAD role due to its single engine. I then wrote that the CF-104 was used as a strike bird in Europe, where it's single engjne is less of an issue. The CF-104 was not bought for the NORAD role, which has been a twin engine job since the 1950s (CF-100, CF-101, CF-188).

It is interesting how today the RCAF is considering the F-35 for NORAD as it would be the first single in that role.

That's because the Pratt & Whitney F135 turbofan is vastly more reliable than the GE J79 turbojet that powered the F-104/CF-104.
 
Top