• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

SAAB J 35 Draken

rousseau

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
315
Reaction score
9
Have u ever seen this pic?
Where did you see this pic first?
If you have seen this pic online, would u mind direct me to that?
 

elmayerle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,348
Reaction score
119
I don't remember seeing it online, but I can make a few educated guesses about it. The aiircraft is clearly an early model, I'm not even certain it has the tail bumper wheels, though it does have the extended aft end that was retrofitted to the prototypes. My opinion is that it's a J-35A used for trials purposes. If memory serves me correctly, the ancient Lindberg 1/48 Draken kit reflects this armament configuration.
 

robban75

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Dec 4, 2006
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi guys! :)

I have seen this image before in books, but not on the web,,, I think.

The Draken in that pic is a J35D. You can tell by the extended intakes that stretch almost as far as the windscreen. The plane has a model 66 afterburner, which is portrayed by the long tail (some J35A and all J35B had the longer tail, but not the extended intakes).The barely visible aerodynamic bump at the lower far end of the fuselage houses the tail wheel.
This very Draken belongs to the F13 wing at Bråvalla, Norrköping and it is a standard operative J35D. The F13 wing usually conducted tactical tests of RSwAF fighters. The plane in the image is probably 35304 or 35310.



http://www.volvo.com/NR/rdonlyres/4984B158-5BA7-4C7F-9C04-9C5FCA10BD5B/0/history_aero_J35_draken_highres.jpg

Here's a chart that shows some of the most immediate differences between the prototype J35, the J35A, B and D.

http://www.ipms.nl/sigs/sweden/dradra2.jpg
 

rousseau

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
315
Reaction score
9
My firest question here is: Is SAAB J35 an unstable jetfighter?
Do you have any details or expounds?
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,047
Reaction score
874
J35 was aerodinamically stable aircraft with some limitations.

http://www.aircraftinformation.info/art_draken.htm
here was no horizontal tailplane, even though Saab engineers had considered fitting one. A few wind tunnel models were built with tailplanes, but during wind tunnel testing it was found that this configuration was unstable, and so the tailplane was dropped.

ftp://ftp.rta.nato.int/PubFullText/RTO/TR/RTO-TR-029/TR-029-02.pdf
SAAB’s experience of the PIO phenomenon had commenced
with the J-35 Draken aircraft. This aircraft had high stick sensitivity combined with a linear gearing of the
stick to elevon. Following the PIO, the solution devised was to add a non-linear gearing and improve the
stability augmentation of the system.

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRHeft05/FRH0511/FR0511e.htm
Wing Commander Doro Kowatsch, the former commander of the air surveillance wing, is today the commander of Flight Regiment 2. He still has a soft spot for the Draken. “That aircraft cut through the air like a hot knife through soft butter,” is how the former Draken display pilot describes the aerodynamic properties of the double-delta wing fighter. “The Draken is very responsive to all control inputs and its narrow tolerances allow little leeway, which means that pilots end up being very disciplined in the way that they fly. The low-speed characteristics take some getting used to, especially in a delta-wing aircraft, as does the high angle of attack on landing. On the other hand the Draken withstands turbulence very well. But a stall warning has to be taken extremely seriously, as the aircraft becomes aerodynamically unstable even before the stall – you have to stick to the ground rules precisely.”
 

AeroFranz

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,260
Reaction score
161
The October 2005 issue of Flight Journal has a nice article on J-35 and J-37 aerodynamics by Barnaby Wainfan (of Northrop advanced concepts). I highly recommend it. Among other things it gives a very clear account of how both airplanes ended up with the planform they have.
 

Justo Miranda

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
4,238
Reaction score
1,893
"here was no horizontal tailplane, even though Saab engineers had considered fitting one. A few wind tunnel models were built with tailplanes, but during wind tunnel testing it was found that this configuration was unstable, and so the tailplane was dropped."

Please see attached two drawings of the SAAB P.1250
 

Attachments

  • Escanear0001.jpg
    Escanear0001.jpg
    70 KB · Views: 171
  • Escanear0002.jpg
    Escanear0002.jpg
    114.8 KB · Views: 175

rousseau

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
315
Reaction score
9
here was no horizontal tailplane, even though Saab engineers had considered fitting one. A few wind tunnel models were built with tailplanes, but during wind tunnel testing it was found that this configuration was unstable, and so the tailplane was dropped.
This quote didn't tell us what does exactly unstable mean here?
What I mean unstable is GoC behind LoC which like F-16, but no matter tailplane was added or not, the meaning of unstable here sounds like a flying situation? ???
 

Mark Nankivil

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,629
Reaction score
512
Pretty impressive considering the age of the aircraft and none of the bells and whistles of today's aircraft:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqiDEcfSnXs&feature=related

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
503
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Saab promotional film for the J35 Draken produced in the 1950s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhCSSlfNJk8&feature=share&list=TLhQa3GQRpVb8
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,392
Reaction score
1,438
Have loved the Draken since I was a kid. Cool aircraft.
 

perttime

I really did change my personal text
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
108
Reaction score
5
Saab Draken Display flight in Sweden, 2012: Försvarsmaktens Veteranflygverksamhet, or Defence Force Historical Flight (my very free translation)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b_JkQ21u7s

The Finnish "Draken In Memoriam" video

http://youtu.be/qWOINzyCLL4
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,710
Reaction score
3,490
Sorry Clipper996,


I am not qualified to answer this question,but we can send here some SAAB-35
Draken variants.


Air International 3/2000
 

Attachments

  • 1-1.png
    1-1.png
    655.2 KB · Views: 343
  • 1-2.png
    1-2.png
    521.5 KB · Views: 316

tiikki

Why I really should change my personal text?
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Website
tiikki.blogspot.com
hesham said:
Sorry Clipper996,


I am not qualified to answer this question,but we can send here some SAAB-35
Draken variants.


Air International 3/2000

Your source had it wrong about Finnish Drakens.

http://tiikki.blogspot.fi/2013/03/saab-draken-in-finnish-air-force-and.html

Here is some information which I've collected.
 

tiikki

Why I really should change my personal text?
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Website
tiikki.blogspot.com
Hi,

Text in your graph claimed that Finnish Draken fighters didn't have missile armament. They had missiles. The BS model in Finland was lacking radar, but had RB24 Sidewinder capability, only CS was missing Air to air missiles.

There were two F versions in Sweden, F1 and F2, with F2 being the later one with IR sensor. The Finnish 35(X)S was F2 model without STRIL-datalink, while 35FS were used Swedish F1 aircraft. All Finnish aircraft received J upgrade later on, but their designation didn't change, they also received Finnish datalink capability.

Tuomo
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,998
Reaction score
496
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Speaking of Drakens, here is a drawing showing a proposed J79 powered version:
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6745.jpg
    IMG_6745.jpg
    103.6 KB · Views: 447

kaiserbill

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,313
Reaction score
133
I can't think of any real benefits for a J-79 version compared to the RM6, to be frank. ???
Maybe export orientated, but then Sweden was notoriously fickle about who they would sell jet fighters to.
 

LowObservable

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,202
Reaction score
130
It also has a smaller-volume, more pointed nose and an added wing sawtooth. And in Swedish designation schemes, AS would mean "attack/recce".

More here: http://www.aircraftinformation.info/art_draken.htm#proposed
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
163
kaiserbill said:
I can't think of any real benefits for a J-79 version compared to the RM6, to be frank. ???

The J79 offered a 10% saving in fuel burn at military power. Which equals more range. Plus it was more robust as a fighter engine, able to handle more abrupt throttle movements, thanks to its variable stators. Also the J79 was much cooler on the outside than the Avon 300. This could be quite significant with a Draken style design with the engine buried in the centre of the fuselage. In that it would require less heat management by the airframe, controls, avionics, etc. therefore reducing overall weight, maintenance needs and improving reliability.

kaiserbill said:
Maybe export orientated, but then Sweden was notoriously fickle about who they would sell jet fighters to.

This well-known phenomenon only developed at a later date. Before the succession of Olof “US Bombing of Hanoi in 1972 is another Katyn or Sharpeville Massacre” Palme to the Prime Ministerial office (in 1969) his mentor Tage Erlander was far less romantic in foreign affairs. Sweden extensively tried to sell their domestic weapons abroad in the 50s and 60s. They were even quite upset when they failed to sell the Lansen strike fighter to South Africa.
 

kaiserbill

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,313
Reaction score
133
Thanks Abe.
I guess I was simply looking at the physical dimensions of the J-79 vs the RM6 as well as thrust. The J-79 is about 2 meters longer than the RM6, about 10% wider, and almost half a ton heavier, for roughly the same thrust. I think it has a higher airflow requirement too.
I would guess that would require a massive redesign to the aft-of-cockpit fuselage internal structure, as well as centre of gravity considerations...etc
Hence my pondering wonderment at benefits.

Thanks for the info on the Swedish defence export issue. Whilst being aware of Palme's odd foreign policies, I wasn't aware of his mentors/predecessors relative real politik.
Not to derail, but a quick question: Do you know what requirement the Lansen was aimed at to compete in South Africa? Was it a strike or intercept role? Trying to figure whether it was aimed at competing against the Mirage III/Sabre/Buccaneer/Canberra, all of which were SAAF projects/purchases in the late 50's/early 60's.
And with the above mentioned info about the Lansen, and in context of this topic, was the J35 Draken ever offered in competition to the Mirage III to the SAAF?
 

Tony Williams

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
576
Reaction score
228
Website
www.quarryhs.co.uk
sferrin said:
Have loved the Draken since I was a kid. Cool aircraft.

Me too - possibly the best-looking fighter jet ever made. One of my "what ifs" from the 1950s is a collaboration between the Swedes and the Brits to build the Draken (it used a British engine and British guns, which is a start!). It could have been a great Hunter replacement, less suited to interception than the Lightning but far more versatile - and exportable. With the RAF prestige behind it (worth a lot then), it could have taken a very large slice of the international market which actually went to the Mirage family.
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
163
kaiserbill said:
Thanks Abe.

No problem.

kaiserbill said:
I guess I was simply looking at the physical dimensions of the J-79 vs the RM6 as well as thrust. The J-79 is about 2 meters longer than the RM6, about 10% wider, and almost half a ton heavier, for roughly the same thrust. I think it has a higher airflow requirement too.

The comparison of tab data is not quite right. The Swedes did not consider the engine and the afterburner as a single unit. So if you are looking at tabulated data for the Volvo RM6B or RM6C it does not include the afterburners which were the Ebk 65, 66 and 67. On the other hand US tab data includes the afterburner if the engine model was so fitted.

The RM6C with Ebk 67 (as fitted to the J35D and later models) was 138” (8,140mm) long with a 44” (1,118mm) diameter and weighed in at 3,902 lbs (1,770 kg) dry (no fuel and oil in it). However much of this length (and a bit of the weight) is consumed by a pipe extension to connect the forward mounted engine and the aft mounted afterburner. This engine produced up to 12,456 lbs thrust (max military) or 17,086 lbs (max reheat).

There is no off the shelf J79 that could replace the RM6C + Ebk 67 because of the separation of the engine and afterburner. However the RM6C by itself could be replaced by a CJ805 which was the afterburnerless, civil version of the J79 as used by the fast and cool looking Convair 880 and 990 airliners. This engine could then be integrated with the Swedish afterburner to achieve the improvements I mentioned in my first post (less fuel burn, better throttle response and less cooling).

kaiserbill said:
I would guess that would require a massive redesign to the aft-of-cockpit fuselage internal structure, as well as centre of gravity considerations...etc

Integrating a new engine into the Draken is always going to require some work because it is buried inside the transverse framing of the forward fuselage which is the main structure of the aircraft. It required extensive work just to go from RM6B to RM6C. However the CJ805 is inside the key dimension footprints of the RM6C. And you could convert a J79 with the insert of a pipe between the turbine and the burner that would fit inside the same volume and weight of the RM6C + Ebk 67. Any changes to intake volume could be easily accommodated with the Draken’s fixed nozzle design and the quite large additional airflows brought in for cooling the centre fuselage with the RM6C. The changes would not be massive nor would they have major influence on the CG. As long as you kept to the engine, pipe, burner design.

kaiserbill said:
Hence my pondering wonderment at benefits.

The devil is always in the details.

kaiserbill said:
Thanks for the info on the Swedish defence export issue. Whilst being aware of Palme's odd foreign policies, I wasn't aware of his mentors/predecessors relative real politik.

Sweden went from by-the-book, conservative, neutral but anti-communist to by-the-book, radical and “non-aligned” aligned in its foreign policies.

kaiserbill said:
Not to derail, but a quick question: Do you know what requirement the Lansen was aimed at to compete in South Africa? Was it a strike or intercept role? Trying to figure whether it was aimed at competing against the Mirage III/Sabre/Buccaneer/Canberra, all of which were SAAF projects/purchases in the late 50's/early 60's.

All I know is that the Swedes were disappointed they didn’t sell the Lansen to South Africa. No further details. I can't even remember were I read it (at the moment).
 

Attachments

  • rm6c-ebk67.png
    rm6c-ebk67.png
    279.5 KB · Views: 338

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
163
Tony Williams said:
sferrin said:
Have loved the Draken since I was a kid. Cool aircraft.

Me too - possibly the best-looking fighter jet ever made.

Its performance is also quite impressive. Like a Mirage III but much tougher, with far better avionics and able to land and takeoff in a WWII standard 3,000 foot runway.
 

Petrus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
602
Reaction score
235
Abraham Gubler said:
This well-known phenomenon only developed at a later date. Before the succession of Olof “US Bombing of Hanoi in 1972 is another Katyn or Sharpeville Massacre” Palme to the Prime Ministerial office (in 1969) his mentor Tage Erlander was far less romantic in foreign affairs. Sweden extensively tried to sell their domestic weapons abroad in the 50s and 60s. They were even quite upset when they failed to sell the Lansen strike fighter to South Africa.

At http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviation/text/exports.html you may find such information of Lansen export efforts:

Saab marketed Lansen during 1953-54 to Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Yugoslavia, Argentine, Venezuela and India.

India were somewhat interested in licence production of 25-40 Lansens at HAL. Saab delivered an offer in 1954. Interest increased in 1957 when series aircraft had flown and India then discussed a purchase of 10 photo reconnaissance and 20 fighter-bombers followed by licence production of 300 more. India purchased British aircraft instead.

South Africa also seriously discussed Lansen but never bought any (possibly because Saab didn't have export experience, possibly because the Swedish air force wanted their Lansens first and happily payed more even though they'd be cheaper with a larger production run, reasons which aren't unique for this case).

Pilots from the Finnish air force flew S 32C in 1957, but they really wanted fighters, so this was hardly a part of a genuine export drive.
 

kaiserbill

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,313
Reaction score
133
Abe Gubler, thanks for that response. Some great detail in there.
I wasn't aware of how long the RM6 (with afterburner) for the J35 is!

Petrus, thanks for that. It's a pity that source doesn't seem to mention a year, nor what role/procurement programme the Lansen was aimed at.
 

Petrus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
602
Reaction score
235
I have a feeling that long ago, somewhere I read that Lansen was a competitor of Buccaneer for service with the SAAF. The latter was eventually chosen.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,838
Reaction score
197
Its performance is also quite impressive. Like a Mirage III but much tougher, with far better avionics and able to land and takeoff in a WWII standard 3,000 foot runway.

G’day Abraham Gubler
That’s interesting information on the Draken vs the Mirage III!
I’ve argued the point of the Draken’s inherent superiority and ruggedness over that of the Mirage III series for years…decades, with an old mate. My principle argument being that Australia/RAAF should have seriously considered the J35 Draken over the Mirage III. Adding to the fact that the Draken was all-weather capable before the Mirage III, it was designed to be refuelled and rearmed in no more than ten minutes, by conscripts with minimal training, and of course, its RM 6B/C turbojet was a derivative of the Rolls-Royce Avon 200/300, which was well versed and trusted within the RAAF!

P.S. is there any chance you point me out the source to your above comment please?

Regards
Pioneer
 

Rickshaw

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,023
Reaction score
106
Australia learnt a valuable lesson about the fickleness of arms exporters (particularly Swedish ones) from it's purchase of the L35a1 Charles Gustav RCL in the early-mid-1960s. When they attempted to use them in South Vietnam, they found their only suppler of ammunition for the RCL - in Sweden - on instructions from the Swedish Government refused to supply them! The result was that the L35a1s were left behind in Australia and the Infantry Company AT Sections deployed as combat dog teams. I can only imagine what would have happened with the Draken...
 

Tony Williams

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
576
Reaction score
228
Website
www.quarryhs.co.uk
That reminds me that the British government once refused to supply Israel with 105mm tank gun ammunition for their Centurion tanks, as a result of pressure from the Arab oil states.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,998
Reaction score
496
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Kadija_Man said:
Australia learnt a valuable lesson about the fickleness of arms exporters (particularly Swedish ones) from it's purchase of the L35a1 Charles Gustav RCL in the early-mid-1960s. When they attempted to use them in South Vietnam, they found their only suppler of ammunition for the RCL - in Sweden - on instructions from the Swedish Government refused to supply them! The result was that the L35a1s were left behind in Australia and the Infantry Company AT Sections deployed as combat dog teams. I can only imagine what would have happened with the Draken...

Err...correct me if I am wrong but didn't French influence also prevent the Mirage IIIs from being employed in Vietnam? It seems as though Australia was hamstrung regardless of whether the Mirage III or Draken had been selected.
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
163
Kadija_Man said:
Australia learnt a valuable lesson about the fickleness of arms exporters (particularly Swedish ones) from it's purchase of the L35a1 Charles Gustav RCL in the early-mid-1960s. When they attempted to use them in South Vietnam, they found their only suppler of ammunition for the RCL - in Sweden - on instructions from the Swedish Government refused to supply them! The result was that the L35a1s were left behind in Australia and the Infantry Company AT Sections deployed as combat dog teams. I can only imagine what would have happened with the Draken...

This argument leaves out one vitally important point. That is when Australia purchased the 84mm from Sweden we did so under a use in self defence only agreement. That is we signed a contract that said we would only use the 84mm inside the territorial boundaries of the Australian commonwealth.

So when we went to deploy the weapon to VietNam the Swedish government was within their rights to refuse appeal and refuse to supply further munitions. All it would have taken to avoid this situation is to purchase the weapons under an unrestricted use agreement.
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
163
I’m not sure about this. I know of no anecdote and also no mechanism by which the French could object. The RAAF Mirage III were built in Australia and received most of their spares from Australian production. How could the French stop us? Also it’s not as if the French had a problem with defending South VietNam. They kind of made it in the first place!
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,838
Reaction score
197
Kadija_Man said:
Australia learnt a valuable lesson about the fickleness of arms exporters (particularly Swedish ones) from it's purchase of the L35a1 Charles Gustav RCL in the early-mid-1960s. When they attempted to use them in South Vietnam, they found their only suppler of ammunition for the RCL - in Sweden - on instructions from the Swedish Government refused to supply them! The result was that the L35a1s were left behind in Australia and the Infantry Company AT Sections deployed as combat dog teams. I can only imagine what would have happened with the Draken...

Yeah thanks Kadija_Man , as an operator of the Charlie Gutsach, in an Australian Army heavy weapons platoon, we were made well aware of this history.
But didn't we have just as much issue with the French re issues of deploying our Mirage III's to Vietnam?

Thanks for your great input!

Regards
Pioneer
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,838
Reaction score
197
GTX said:
Kadija_Man said:
Australia learnt a valuable lesson about the fickleness of arms exporters (particularly Swedish ones) from it's purchase of the L35a1 Charles Gustav RCL in the early-mid-1960s. When they attempted to use them in South Vietnam, they found their only suppler of ammunition for the RCL - in Sweden - on instructions from the Swedish Government refused to supply them! The result was that the L35a1s were left behind in Australia and the Infantry Company AT Sections deployed as combat dog teams. I can only imagine what would have happened with the Draken...

Err...correct me if I am wrong but didn't French influence also prevent the Mirage IIIs from being employed in Vietnam? It seems as though Australia was hamstrung regardless of whether the Mirage III or Draken had been selected.

Whoops .....sorry Greg, just saw your post, which literally says what I was saying!! :-[

Thanks

Regards
Pioneer
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,295
Reaction score
1,260
Abraham Gubler said:
I’m not sure about this. I know of no anecdote and also no mechanism by which the French could object. The RAAF Mirage III were built in Australia and received most of their spares from Australian production. How could the French stop us? Also it’s not as if the French had a problem with defending South VietNam. They kind of made it in the first place!

It's a widespread story, appearing in a bunch of places including the RAAF Association's "Hall of Fame" entry for Mirage III.

http://www.raafa.org.au/mirage

I can't say whether it's true though. Some online discussions say there is evidence for it in Michael Sexton's War for the Asking about Australia's involvement in Vietnam, but I don't have a copy to confirm that.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,231
Reaction score
1,750
Also it’s not as if the French had a problem with defending South VietNam. They kind of made it in the first place!

We didn't pushed the U.S.A into the Vietnam trap in the first place - they clusterfucked themselves into Vietnam all by themselves.
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
163
TomS said:
It's a widespread story, appearing in a bunch of places including the RAAF Association's "Hall of Fame" entry for Mirage III.

Sounds like a zombie myth. Just like the Charlie G myth. Belief in persecution by some external agency is immensely powerful even if their is no evidence to support it. And even when you present evidence to the contrary people go on believing it anyway.

The real reason the RAAF didn't deploy tactical fighters to combat operations in VietNam was that they were already overextended. The issue was raised in relation to No. 79 Squadron deployed to RTAF Ubon (Thailand) to provide air defence. The Australian Cabinet decided*, after American request with Thai support, to NOT use this squadron in anti Ho Chin Minh Trail operations in Laos because they believed the RAAF was close to over extension with the deployments of No. 2 Squadron (Canberra) to South VietNam and the ongoing deployment of No. 78 Wing (Sabre/Miro) in SEA. That is the RAAF had 4 out of 6 fighter/bomber squadrons deployed overseas and all with operational roles. Also at this time 1965-67 the RAAF was converting to the Mirage IIIO and then upgrading them from an interceptor configuration, the IIIO(F), to a strike fighter configuration: IIIO(A). It was the new kid on the ground and when the decisions for force deployments made (~1965) would not be a realible choice. Even when 79 Sqn. was considered for the War Against Trucks it was going to use the proven CAC Avon Sabre not the new Miro.

* Edwards, Peter (1997). A Nation at War : Australian Politics, Society and Diplomacy During the Vietnam War 1965–1975. The Official History of Australia's Involvement in Southeast Asian Conflicts 1948–1975
 

Similar threads

Top