Saab Viggen for the RAF?

uk 75

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
5,744
Reaction score
5,633
The Meccano Magaxine in May 1967 contained an article by John Taylor about the Saab Viggen as well instructions on how to make a balsa wood flying model.
Taylor was very impressed by the Viggen. It went on to perform all the roles for which the RAF had to develop MRCA to do.
Sweden in the 1960s was much more neutral and non aligned than in later years of the Cold War. So a purchase of Viggens by the UK would have been impossible.
But Saab had close relations with British industry. In the period when the UK abandoned TSR2, F111 and then AFVG might not a British version of the Viggen have made sense?
With skilful cooperation it could have entered service by 1975 instead of the Jaguar and well before the Tornado.
 

Attachments

  • 67050006~2.jpg
    67050006~2.jpg
    555.2 KB · Views: 79
  • 67050007~2.jpg
    67050007~2.jpg
    671.6 KB · Views: 89
  • 67050027~2.jpg
    67050027~2.jpg
    718.3 KB · Views: 89
  • 67050028~2.jpg
    67050028~2.jpg
    376.9 KB · Views: 87
  • 67050029~2.jpg
    67050029~2.jpg
    368.8 KB · Views: 65
  • 67050030~2.jpg
    67050030~2.jpg
    232.4 KB · Views: 78
Well, the Viggen once was to use a Medway rather than a civilian, tweaked J52 called the JT8D... but the utterly and insanely stupid decision to shrink the Trident from an almost perfect future-727 size to "something smaller with Speys" that only build 117 airframes - screwed its larger brother Medway (facepalm). The baffled Swedes then picked the airliner J52 variant and adapted it to their needs.

One delightful irony would be a Viggen not with the original Medway but the RB.168 Spey of F-4K fame. Rolls Royce catching up with the Swedes after dropping them early on.

While the Spey sucked at altitude, the Viggen most immediate priority was the attack role to replace the collection of obsolete SAABs, pre Drakken and still in service: all the way from the 29 Tunnan to the 32 Lansen - plus the Hawker Hunters.

On the interceptor front the Drakkens were still going strong, hence the Viggen interceptor could wait a little (the late 1970's). So the Spey issues at altitude wouldn't bother the Viggen early on.

Note that a modified Viggen called "Eurofighter" (ain't that funny ? a Swedish Eurocanard with the same name !) was SAAB entry into the Deal of the Century (DOTC). Britain's entry was the Jaguar (facepalm).
Now, if the Brits and Swedes got a Viggen deal earlier in the 1960's, a decade later their OTL separate Viggen and Jaguar DOTC bids can merge into a powerful one.
A Viggen with a RB.168 Spey would be (technically) a pretty valuable competitor to the F1-M53 and YF-16. Of course the Viper is still a generation ahead of both and would carry the day.
 
Last edited:
Viggen was, and still is one of my favorites, 40 years after I've 1st saw it in the military magazine 'Front' :)
RAF piggy-backing on the machine makes all the sense it needs. Have the RR-powered machine compete on the foreign markets, too.

Leave Jaguar only as a high-speed trainer.
 
Amen to that. Viggen can't compete with the TSR-2 of course, but the Swedes nonetheless build one heck of a powerful attack aircraft. It only lacked FBW, otherwise it was top of the line.

Smack dab between a F1 (too small with a weak engine) a Phantom (big and powerful but 1950's and expensive twin jet) and a MiG-23 (early shitty variants plus often controversial VG wing).

Funny to think they kind of bet Dassault at its own delta-Mirage game. Viggen was like a Mirage V on steroids, with far more sophisticated avionics - not too difficult ! - and a TF306E -like big powerful turbofan in the back. Closest think I can think off is the 2000 but only a decade later and still smaller with a less powerful engine. Viggen was pretty unique in its early days (1972 - something).

Had the Soviets tried to crack the Swedish nut in WWIII, they would have inevitably prevailed on sheer numbers (and atomic weapons maybe) - but the Swedes would have nonetheless gave them a very bloody nose.
 
Did SAAB ever look at an afterburning Conway turbofan for the Viggen?
It fits with regards to thrust and timing.
 
I can see the Viggen in RAF service, it just needed ‘one or two’ things to have been decided slightly differently… sigh (wishful thinking).
I do however remember seeing a [air of Viggens at the Farnborough air show 1972 or 74 I think.
they made a magnificent sight thundering down the runway, and as they left the tarmac, afterburners on full, it was a sound to marvel at!
 
The idea of Viggens (a very charismatic aircraft) for the RAF has - and some of the discussions above have - a number of issues:
- the Viggen was very much tied to very specific Swedish requirements; those limited it’s wider appeal.
- it’s far too big and heavy for a single Spey.
- it’s far bigger, heavier (and more expensive) than a Jaguar (approx 50 percent heavier than a Jaguar).
- it’s not as capable or as tailored to Uk requirements as a Tornado. In particular lacking in range/ payload relative to a Tornado (which itself initially faced some criticism on that front).

The Viggen is an excellent aircraft in its intended Swedish context but it doesn’t travel particularly well outside that context.
There are reasons it never found an export customer beyond the engine being subject to potential US veto.
 
Like most alternate history threads here we know what the real world options looked like. But as Kaiserd has done it is worth reminding ourselves why they were chosen and not the alt we are looking at.
I am not sure that weight and range would be such issues compared with Jaguar..Operating on the Central Front or in Norway or Denmark would have been pretty similar to Viggen ops in Sweden.
As said, Viggen was not TSR2 but then neither was Tornado.
A force of 150 Viggens by 1975 would have given nore punch than Jaguar and retained some of the off airbase options sought with P1154. The Phantoms could have gone to UK Air Defence. Hawk would still have met the Training Role.
France could hardly have complained as they had killed off AFVG so opening the door to Viggen. And Viggen is at least partly European.
Looking further ahead there is still the meed to replace 48 Vulcans and in due course the Buccaneer force. The F111 remains the best aircraft for this role. It has the range and systems that Tornado and Viggen lack.
Alternatively the Tomahawk GLCM could give the same capability.
Gripen would have been closer to Eurofighter if it had been developed to replace RAF and Swedish Viggens. France would have had Germany as a Rafale partner (sorry Paris I would not wish that on anyone).
 
The RAF's ever-shifting needs and requirements in the 1960s and early 1970s are a bit bewildering to keep track of. You had:

- A tactical bomber to replace the Hunter and Canberra: the P.1154 (cancelled 1965, replaced immediately by F-4M), the Phantom (chosen 1965), the AFVG (replaced by Phantom, shoved into TSR.2 niche, cancelled 1967), and the Jaguar (MOU 1965, joint company set up 1966, early prototype 1967).
- A home-defense interceptor to replace the Lightning: F-4 Phantom (planes transferred to role 1969, 1974, 1979), then Tornado ADV (1976)
- A long-range bomber to replace the V-force and Canberras on the high end: TSR.2 (cancelled 1964), AFVG (cancelled 1968), F-111K (cancelled 1968), Buccaneer as an interim (picked up 1968), and then finally the Tornado (begun 1969).
- And a close-support aircraft, which in a breath of fresh simplicity was just the Harrier.

For comparison, the AJ 37 Viggen first flew in 1967, and the first production aircraft delivered 1971. The JA 37 first flew in 1974 and the first production plane delivered in 1980.

Okay, I think here's our point of divergence. As near as I can tell, the cancellation of the AFVG happened not long after the British began to push for feature creep in the original Jaguar prototypes, the feature creep allowing the Brits to grow the Jaguar into a suitable replacement for both the AFVG and F-4M in the tactical strike role. What else happens this year? First flight of the AJ Viggen prototypes. The AJ Viggen is a worthy replacement for the AFVG - in particular, the AFVG called for a minimum strike radius of 500nm and the Viggen can do that. So the Jaguar remains a trainer with only light attack capability, the AJ Viggen comes online for tactical strike instead of the Jaguar, and the F-4M goes as OTL into the air defense role.

The Tornado can continue on in this scenario in the long-range strike role - it's more capable in strike than the AJ Viggen and the ADV better fits RAF requirements than the JA.
 
System 37 started being designed around the Olympus.
Moved to Medway for a while and then opted for the JT8D.

Arguably the missing engine option was the BS.58 straight through Pegasus.

Swedes tried to interest the UK at same time the UK tried to interest them in the P.1154.
 
Archibald said:
Well, the Viggen once was to use a Medway rather than a civilian, tweaked J52 called the JT8D... but the utterly and insanely stupid decision to shrink the Trident from an almost perfect future-727 size to "something smaller with Speys" that only build 117 airframes - screwed its larger brother Medway (facepalm). The baffled Swedes then picked the airliner J52 variant and adapted it to their needs.

One delightful irony would be a Viggen not with the original Medway but the RB.168 Spey of F-4K fame. Rolls Royce catching up with the Swedes after dropping them early on.

While the Spey sucked at altitude, the Viggen most immediate priority was the attack role to replace the collection of obsolete SAABs, pre Drakken and still in service: all the way from the 29 Tunnan to the 32 Lansen - plus the Hawker Hunters

......

A Viggen with a RB.168 Spey would be (technically) a pretty valuable competitor to the F1-M53 and YF-16. Of course the Viper is still a generation ahead of both and would carry the day.
Click to expand...

Spey RB. 168-25 (Mk 201 Phantom FG.1; Mk 202/203 Phantom FGR.2) 12,250 lb.s.t. dry, 20,515 lb.s.t. reheat

RM JT8D-22 (RM8A AJ-37 14,000 lb.s.t., 26,000 lb.s.t. reheat [RM8B JA-37 16,400 lb.s.t. dry, 28,100 lb.s.t. reheat])

Just a slight difference in thrust there.

An afterburning TF41 (Allison-modified Spey for A-7D/Es) would produce 15,000 lb.s.t. dry (as in the A-7E) with probably around 25,000-25,500 lb.s.t. reheated, so that would work for the strike-fighter version (and should have been done in the late 1970s for the F-14A to replace its TF30-412, which had virtually identical thrust to the RB.186-25 - even the TF30-100 of the F-111F in 1972 produced 15,000 lb.s.t. dry and 25,100 lb.s.t. reheated, why didn't the USN buy a navalized version of that for the F-14As?).
 
Last edited:
Did somebody say Spey Viggens?

That article pretty much sums up the options.
I think it would be cool. Gives BAC an excuse to cancel the SEPECAT deal and hop into bed with the Swedes. Now imagine a Viggen International with British engines and perhaps avionics to get around US tech export issues and Swedish neutrality issues - Nigeria, Ecuador, maybe Peru, India. Yep that means HAL built Viggens too.... now fantasising that leads to a Gripen-esque Tejas, maybe even the Gripen itself built under licence by HAL.
I think I need to lay down before I get too excited...
 
Hood said:
Did somebody say Spey Viggens?

That article pretty much sums up the options.
I think it would be cool. Gives BAC an excuse to cancel the SEPECAT deal and hop into bed with the Swedes. Now imagine a Viggen International with British engines and perhaps avionics to get around US tech export issues and Swedish neutrality issues - Nigeria, Ecuador, maybe Peru, India. Yep that means HAL built Viggens too.... now fantasising that leads to a Gripen-esque Tejas, maybe even the Gripen itself built under licence by HAL.
I think I need to lay down before I get too excited...
Click to expand...

Excellent !
37XE-2: Single-engine with Bristol Olympus B.Ol. 22R, extended airframe and increased fuel capacity.
I'm tempted to add: if the TSR-2's Olympus is toast, then try the Concorde engine - it was a derivate of it with colossal amounts of thrust. Should be able to send a RAF Viggen in orbit, or close. ROTFL.
 
The Swedes got the Eurocanard shape a couple of decades and one generation before the Rafale / Typhoon... and Grippen, obviously (ha ha) A pity they couldn't get analog FBW like the Mirage 2000: but 1960-67 was a decade too early - except perhaps for Concorde and the forgotten Avro Arrow.
Funny to think the SAAB Viggen entry in the Deal Of The Century, 1974, was called EUROFIGHTER.
 
Gives BAC an excuse to cancel the SEPECAT deal
Click to expand...
Would be a huge relief for the AdA french accountants and bean counters. The Jaguar circa 1970-74 was a monetary black hole at a time when plenty of cheaper alternatives existed: moar Mirage IIIEs, moar foreign Mirage Vs (Israel ?) moar attack Mirage F1...

The AdA learned to appreciate the Jaguar in Africa after 1977, but in the decade before it was seen as a very, very expensive folly duplicating attack Mirages at a higher cost with lower performance: even with two engines. TBH, both Mirage IIIEs and Jaguars dragged AN-52s and AS-37 Martels for the same missions overall. As far as avionics were concerned however, the Jaguar was closer from the second-hand Mirage V from Israel than the IIIEs.
 
As I've previously suggested, it's actually the A.36 Strike aircraft that has a more NMBR.3 capability and thus of more RAF interest.

That said a British Viggen in variations might reach excess of 400 airframes.
This could have been part of a much wider collaboration.
 
As a trainer Jaguar should have cheap like a Hawk or an Alphajet. Or even a T-38. What really made the damn thing expensive was international cooperation. The 1960's way, that of Concorde and Transall... ugh. But Typhoon doesn't seem to have done much better in the 1990's, so maybe international cooperation are bound to be exensive even with a dose of common sense applied to them ?
 
At one point (1967) Sweden thought the Viggen would be cheaper than the F-4 though, so its swings and roundabouts.

For me the devil is in the detail. The CK 37 central computer actually turned out to be quite good, there was a fair bit of US-kit included (even more so for the JA37). The UK would likely want to fit its own kit; the Decca Type 72 Doppler could be retained, but could the Ferranti INS from Jaguar be integrated with CK 37? Presumably the Ericsson PS 37 radar would be ditched for LRMTS, better for ground-attack and probably saves a few pennies (and weight too).

Now the question is (from a 1974-76 viewpoint), do you go for ADV or do you buy Ericsson PS 46 radars and build a JA 37 analogue with Skyflash integrated (or maybe a joint Marconi/Ericsson radar for both?).

A souped-up Viggen would also very much resemble the kind of aircraft wanted for AST.396/AST.403 in the 1970s for a 1990s aircraft. It could quite conceivably drastically alter what became Eurofighter. Imagine a BAe/SAAB Super Viggen with XG40 and FBW in service by 1990 or alternatively (and more likely) a larger Gripen, possibly twin-engined.
 
Hood said:
Now the question is (from a 1974-76 viewpoint), do you go for ADV or do you buy Ericsson PS 46 radars and build a JA 37 analogue with Skyflash integrated (or maybe a joint Marconi/Ericsson radar for both?).
Click to expand...

I'd go with JA 37 analogue.

After that, start thinking about the next-gen canard-delta aircraft for the late 1980s?
 
AST.396 wanted a big and sophisticated STOL strike aircraft correct ? Viggen for sure had all three atributes
 
Archibald said:
As a trainer Jaguar should have cheap like a Hawk or an Alphajet. Or even a T-38. What really made the damn thing expensive was international cooperation. The 1960's way, that of Concorde and Transall... ugh. But Typhoon doesn't seem to have done much better in the 1990's, so maybe international cooperation are bound to be exensive even with a dose of common sense applied to them ?
Click to expand...
On page 699 of Volume 1 of Die grenzenlose Dimension Raumfahrt, Harry O. Ruppe quoted a cost estimation formula for technological projects executed in international cooperation proposed by Dr. Wolfgang Finke from the then German Federal Ministry of Research and Technology that postulated a total cost equal to that of an equivalent national project times the square root of the number of participating countries, the logic being that despite associated economic inefficiencies caused for example by more complex coordination and communication requirements the cost per individual country is still lower than if they were to go it alone.
 
Last edited:
Whilst that square root of number of partners is often quoted it doesn't give a great match to available data. There are other better methods.

But broadly, total combined programme costs are higher, but still less than two separate programmes. This advantage reduces for more partners, but generally some partners are bigger than others so it is complicated.
 
martinbayer said:
On page 699 of Volume 1 of Die grenzenlose Dimension Raumfahrt, Harry O. Ruppe quoted a cost estimation formula for technological projects executed in international cooperation proposed by Dr. Wolfgang Finke from the then German Federal Ministry of Research and Technology that postulated a total cost equal to that of an equivalent national project times the square root of the number of participating countries, the logic being that despite associated economic inefficiencies caused for example by more complex coordination and communication requirements the cost per individual country is still lower than if they were to go it alone.
Click to expand...

Are the delays and inflation calculated in? Governments agreeing, and later removing themselves from programs?
 
red admiral said:
Whilst that square root of number of partners is often quoted it doesn't give a great match to available data. There are other better methods.
Click to expand...
Can you provide some pointers or references for alternative approaches?
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
Other than the translated reference above, I have no further information, but background information on Finke can be found at https://archives.eui.eu/en/isaar/239, and the archived page at https://web.archive.org/web/2022062...etoweb7604.nsf/id/DE_Prof_Dr_Wolfgang_F_Finke provides contact information, although he'd be 97 by now.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the feedback.
The point I was trying to make is that in an ideal situation (governments are backing up the development 100% all the times), the cooperation will indeed produce aircraft that will cost less per piece. Unfortunately, these ideal situations were few and far between. Eg. AFVG fisaco - there is no way that respective governments can return the clock and start anew, but they will start with now greater prices of everything. Or the MRCA program, that saw Belgium and Canada withdraw early on, followed by Nehterlands.
Eurofighter - French being the part of it, then retreating, Germans being in, then wanting the smaller and cheaper A/C, forcing UK to make their own delta-canard prototype, etc.
Time = money, and, boy, were they wasting it or what.

The best and most timely British post-war programs were the ones where Britain called the shots, or were on their own - V bombers, a lot of jet fighters, TSR 2, Canberra, Buccaneer, Harrier, Hawk. Too bad they didn't have the foresight to do it past 1960s.
 
tomo pauk said:
martinbayer said:
Other than the translated reference above, I have no further information, but background information on Finke can be found at https://archives.eui.eu/en/isaar/239, and the archived page at https://web.archive.org/web/2022062...etoweb7604.nsf/id/DE_Prof_Dr_Wolfgang_F_Finke provides contact information, although he'd be 97 by now.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the feedback.
The point I was trying to make is that in an ideal situation (governments are backing up the development 100% all the times), the cooperation will indeed produce aircraft that will cost less per piece. Unfortunately, these ideal situations were few and far between. Eg. AFVG fisaco - there is no way that respective governments can return the clock and start anew, but they will start with now greater prices of everything. Or the MRCA program, that saw Belgium and Canada withdraw early on, followed by Nehterlands.
Eurofighter - French being the part of it, then retreating, Germans being in, then wanting the smaller and cheaper A/C, forcing UK to make their own delta-canard prototype, etc.
Time = money, and, boy, were they wasting it or what.

The best and most timely British post-war programs were the ones where Britain called the shots, or were on their own - V bombers, a lot of jet fighters, TSR 2, Canberra, Buccaneer, Harrier, Hawk. Too bad they didn't have the foresight to do it past 1960s.
Click to expand...
The TSR2 wasn’t a successful program and many of the most expensive embarrassing failures (TSR2, AEW Nimrod) were UK-only.

And after some time the Harrier effectively became an international program (with the UK the junior partner to the US).
And earlier US aid paid for a lot of the Hunters produced (effectively a US subsidised program).

And the likes of the Jaguar, Tornado and the Typhoon have seen (and will see) far longer and more successful service than many of their earlier UK-only equivalents.

There are pros & cons going for a domestic-only project versus international joint-project. The latter may cost less, are generally harder to cancel, but will likely take longer. The former may take less time and may be more focused on your own specific requirements but are probably more vulnerable to cancellation in face of technical problems and/ or cost escalation (and/ or cheaper/ more established/ more capable foreign designs).

It is notable that the UK were so eager to make the Tempest program an international program and to add Japan as a major (effectively equal?) partner.
 
The Tornado survived because of not in spite of the cooperation with Italy and Germany. An early history of the Tornado by Bill Gunston contains good material from the various people who worked on getting it into service.

Panavia Tornado (Modern combat aircraft 6) by Bill Gunston

Buy Panavia Tornado (Modern combat aircraft 6) First Edition by Bill Gunston (ISBN: 9780711010093) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.
www.amazon.co.uk

I am sure the BAC Viggen would have become an international programme pretty quickly.
Some nice Viggen variants here:

Saab Viggen Ideas and Inspiration

Saab Viggen Ideas and Inspiration
beyondthesprues.com
 
an RAF Viggen what if
01.jpg
 
Hood said:
At one point (1967) Sweden thought the Viggen would be cheaper than the F-4 though, so its swings and roundabouts.

For me the devil is in the detail. The CK 37 central computer actually turned out to be quite good, there was a fair bit of US-kit included (even more so for the JA37). The UK would likely want to fit its own kit; the Decca Type 72 Doppler could be retained, but could the Ferranti INS from Jaguar be integrated with CK 37? Presumably the Ericsson PS 37 radar would be ditched for LRMTS, better for ground-attack and probably saves a few pennies (and weight too).

Now the question is (from a 1974-76 viewpoint), do you go for ADV or do you buy Ericsson PS 46 radars and build a JA 37 analogue with Skyflash integrated (or maybe a joint Marconi/Ericsson radar for both?).

A souped-up Viggen would also very much resemble the kind of aircraft wanted for AST.396/AST.403 in the 1970s for a 1990s aircraft. It could quite conceivably drastically alter what became Eurofighter. Imagine a BAe/SAAB Super Viggen with XG40 and FBW in service by 1990 or alternatively (and more likely) a larger Gripen, possibly twin-engined.
Click to expand...
I thought Viggen could use sky flash?!
 
A single nation programme is probably quicker and "better" because the decision making is simpler and you can tailor it to be exactly what you want. The problem is in affordability, both in total, and annual, because you need to spend money on other things too. e.g. IAI Lavi development was something like 30% of the entire annual defence budget.

The "successful" UK-only programmes were generally either simple (Hawk, early jets) or paid for by the US (Harrier, Hunter etc.)
 
red admiral said:
A single nation programme is probably quicker and "better" because the decision making is simpler and you can tailor it to be exactly what you want. The problem is in affordability, both in total, and annual, because you need to spend money on other things too. e.g. IAI Lavi development was something like 30% of the entire annual defence budget.

The "successful" UK-only programmes were generally either simple (Hawk, early jets) or paid for by the US (Harrier, Hunter etc.)
Click to expand...
I completely agree, but I'd still like to ask you for concrete information on the other better methods for estimating the cumulative costs of multinational efforts vs. single nation ones that you hinted at in the discussion above.
 
martinbayer said:
I completely agree, but I'd still like to ask you for concrete information on the other better methods for estimating the cumulative costs of multinational efforts vs. single nation ones that you hinted at in the discussion above.
Click to expand...
I need to have a look at what has actually been published into public domain on it. I think that RAND also published some relationships back in 80s. It's then possible to take these earlier methods further and try to account for differences across the partners to get a better match to the data.

The biggest issues with RAND's and Finke's methods are assuming equal partnerships, but this is increasingly not the case as you add more partners
 
red admiral said:
martinbayer said:
I completely agree, but I'd still like to ask you for concrete information on the other better methods for estimating the cumulative costs of multinational efforts vs. single nation ones that you hinted at in the discussion above.
Click to expand...
I need to have a look at what has actually been published into public domain on it. I think that RAND also published some relationships back in 80s. It's then possible to take these earlier methods further and try to account for differences across the partners to get a better match to the data.

The biggest issues with RAND's and Finke's methods are assuming equal partnerships, but this is increasingly not the case as you add more partners
Click to expand...
probably a good rough estimate could be made using multiplying the percentage of labor cost represented by management by the number of partners as each will have their own management teams..just as a floor
 
I wonder, if Sweden could produce sufficient number of Viggens for UK, even with cooperation with British companies. Other SAAB jets have been produced mostly for the small airforces, which activities are not as extensive, as RAF.
Moreover, requirements for Viggen seems too Sweden-oriented, and no other country decided to purchase it for their air force.
Of course, it's just a my humble opinion. SAAB is a good company, experienced with combat jet production. However, I think, that they works in their own niche.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom