GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,451
Reaction score
1,532
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
306
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
306
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
2,116
Reaction score
659
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
2,116
Reaction score
659
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
4,880
Reaction score
2,394
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: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
6,661
Reaction score
5,425
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
306
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
 

Rickshaw

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,095
Reaction score
222
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.

No, not quite. The French had little influence over how and where the Mirage was to be deployed.

The RAAF was, like the rest of the ADF caught short by the Government decision to intervene in South Vietnam. It was over-extended and in the middle of a massive re-equipment phase, taking on board new fighters (Mirage), new bombers (F-111), new patrol aircraft (P-3) and new tactical and medium transport aircraft (Caribou and C-130). While the ADF rose to the challenge, it was in the early years a close run thing and one of the major reasons why conscription was reintroduced in 1965. At that point in time, the Army only had 1 brigade of regular soldiers - 3 battalions of infantry. The RAAF was already heavily committed to Malaya, Borneo and Thailand. We were in 1965 a small power militarily - more powerful than our immediate neighbours but insignificant as far as the US was concerned. We were in South Vietnam more because we had a separate and distinct flag to the US rather than because of any real military contribution we could make.

The danger with the Draken, instead of the Mirage was that the Swedes might have written the contract differently, making our use of the aircraft difficult. While there wasn't any real little need for another, different supersonic fighter-bomber in the skies of Vietnam, there was the possibility that the Coalition Government in it's zeal to "Go all the way..." might have attempted to commit them, perhaps before 1968. As the Swedes had blocked us with the deployment of the L35a1, it was possible they would have done so with the Draken.

The French OTOH were notorious in not caring how their military equipment was used or misused after they had sold it, particularly in the 1960s. What we have to understand is that while the first Australian built Mirage was delivered in 1964, I doubt that a squadron would have been fully trained and deployable before 1966-7. This was a Mach 2 capable fighter, optimised for the intercept role after all (the strike version didn't arrive until 1969 IIRC). The ADF started to wind down it's commitment to South Vietnam in AIUI 1969, so they wouldn't have much time in theatre. You'd also have to ask, exactly what or who would they be intercepting? I can't see the Australian Government being overly keen on them being used over North Vietnam.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,451
Reaction score
1,532
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Guys, I am happy to be corrected (as I said in my original post). I was simply repeating information (incorrect it would appear) that I had heard numerous times over the years.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
6,661
Reaction score
5,425
There's is also the fact that the Mirage III had a short range and was not capable of aerial refueling.

(edit some months after) The Mirage not only lacked range to efficiently fly over Vietnam from, say, Thailand, but aerial refueling was not its cup of tea (somewhat ironically, Mirage IV and Mirage F1 could, but not the III, although refueling probes were retrofitted in the 90's and beyond)
 
Last edited:

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
1,583
Reaction score
1,062
Those dogs' teeth on outer wing panels would help with Drakens' deep stall problem.
 

LowObservable

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,224
Reaction score
245
Has anyone ever heard of a major flaw with folding canards on a delta, that would explain why they never caught on? It would seem to be a relatively simple way to mitigate some classic delta limitations, and applicable to some of today's supercruise ambitions.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,543
Reaction score
3,966
Probably that their management were far more interested in selling new built airframe than retrofitted old ones.
The Mirage III Milan even never passed airshow success either.

 
Last edited:

iverson

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
502
Reaction score
411
Fixed canards proved successful on the Mirage. I suspect that the retractable ones did not have all the same advantages (such as better in-flight maneuvering) while costing more, creating potential reliability issues, and adding weight and maintenance headaches.

On the Draken, I suspect that the aerodynamics are a bit mroe complex, in that it already has what amount to giant leading edge extentions.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,457
Reaction score
7,151
Fixed canards proved successful on the Mirage. I suspect that the retractable ones did not have all the same advantages (such as better in-flight maneuvering) while costing more, creating potential reliability issues, and adding weight and maintenance headaches.

On the Draken, I suspect that the aerodynamics are a bit mroe complex, in that it already has what amount to giant leading edge extentions.
I suspect folding canards are excessively heavy and complicated. The rationale for folding canards on older supersonic designs was to deploy them to compensate for CG shift at high speed, which isn’t relevant with CCV / fly by wire. Then there’s the Milan which deployed its tiny canards for takeoff and landing only. Modern canard deltas are designed such the canard / wing interaction is a key part of the wing aerodynamics so not sure putting them away is a good idea.
 

blockhaj

Swedish "want to be" aviation specialist
Joined
Feb 9, 2017
Messages
204
Reaction score
120
The Mod level 4 and similar configs with canards etc is what was supposed to be the Saab 35G, an attacker variant. All remaining Swedish J 35Ds by the early 80s were proposed to be modified to this type, however the budget did not allow for it when the JAS 39 Gripen got greenlit.

The Mod level 1 etc eventually became the Saab 35J however. The reason it got the suffix J (Johan) instead of the logical G or H had 2 reasons. The most common reason told is that all Saab 35J aircraft were going to air wing F10 Ängelholm, were all divisions had the first name Johan. However the second reason was that Saab had already designed Draken variants with the suffix H (Helvetia=Switzerland) and I (Israel), and thus it was practical for them if the next variant got the suffix J.

The 35H and 35I were designed prior to Saab using X (for export) in their suffixes, like the XD (export Denmark) and XS (export Suomi=Finland).
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
6,661
Reaction score
5,425
The neat thing with Canard Draken: they were not on the way or the air intakes yet could be far ahead to be efficient enough.
Draken air intakes were more canard-friendly than those of Mirages. C'est la vie.
 

blockhaj

Swedish "want to be" aviation specialist
Joined
Feb 9, 2017
Messages
204
Reaction score
120
The neat thing with Canard Draken: they were not on the way or the air intakes yet could be far ahead to be efficient enough.
Draken air intakes were more canard-friendly than those of Mirages. C'est la vie.
The Mirage III had some fairly advanced air intakes did it not? I have heard that the Mirage III had intakes that made it suitable for extremely high speeds, like Mach 2, compared to the Saab 35 which had more convetional intakes.
 

dan_inbox

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
966
Reaction score
545
Saab had already designed Draken variants with the suffix H (Helvetia=Switzerland) and I (Israel), and thus it was practical for them if the next variant got the suffix J.
Do you have any information about this variant for Israel?
 

blockhaj

Swedish "want to be" aviation specialist
Joined
Feb 9, 2017
Messages
204
Reaction score
120
Saab had already designed Draken variants with the suffix H (Helvetia=Switzerland) and I (Israel), and thus it was practical for them if the next variant got the suffix J.
Do you have any information about this variant for Israel?
Onfortunately no more than that Saab proposed a variant of the Draken for Israel to compete against the Mirage. Israel showed a lot of interest towards buying Swedish aircraft throughout the cold war following their purchase of old Swedish Mustangs in the early 50s. They even test flew and made a bid to buy Saab 29s during the mid 50s. I dont know what happened to the proposal.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
6,661
Reaction score
5,425
They even test flew and made a bid to buy Saab 29s during the mid 50s. I dont know what happened to the proposal.

No idea for the Drakens, but the Tunnan story went as follow.
- Canadian Sabres: NO
- Dassault Mystère II: YES, but shitty aircraft, flying coffin
- J-29 Tunnans: NO
- Mystère IV and Ouragans: Yes.
 

blockhaj

Swedish "want to be" aviation specialist
Joined
Feb 9, 2017
Messages
204
Reaction score
120
They even test flew and made a bid to buy Saab 29s during the mid 50s. I dont know what happened to the proposal.

No idea for the Drakens, but the Tunnan story went as follow.
- Canadian Sabres: NO
- Dassault Mystère II: YES, but shitty aircraft, flying coffin
- J-29 Tunnans: NO
- Mystère IV and Ouragans: Yes.
If i remember the story correctly the Swedish government said no for political reasons as Israel was at war.
 

steelpillow

So many projects, so little time...
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
689
Website
www.steelpillow.com
In the search for a successor to Project 1250, which became the Saab 35 Draken, Saab studied advanced variants of the standard machine. Some are mentioned in:

Tony Buttler; "Secret Saab Projects," Air Enthusiast No.90, November/December 2000, pp. 14-25.​
A few of these were in essence developments or derivatives of the Draken.

During the 1950s, Attack System 1350, Project 35:a, and/or Flugplan (Aircraft) 36, emerged as a Draken with a reheated Avon engine, thin wing with outer sweep increased and a longer nose. Project 35C, aka Flygplan 36, of 1956 looked much like that, but was a fraction smaller than the Draken - it may or may not have been the same design strand as 35:a.

Project 37-1 of the late 1950s to early 60s was a heavy fighter with an overall very similar but slightly larger airframe. Buttler includes a drawing of the comparison. Good STOL performance was now a requirement but, despite including thrust-reversal, it proved inadequate. Its canard-equipped replacement eventually led to the Viggen.

A study wind-tunnel tested in 1969 had a larger nose with bigger radar.
Another, developed in the late 1970s, had retractable canard foreplanes on the engine intakes and an enlarged wing with additional hardpoints.
These two studies "helped development of the J 35J of the late 1980s", although the 35J made no significant aerodynamic changes; it was primarily an avionics refit with a couple of extra missile hardpoints.
 
Last edited:

steelpillow

So many projects, so little time...
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
689
Website
www.steelpillow.com
Threads now merged, I see.

Have to say, since I was a kid the Draken has been my all-time favourite aeroplane. It always looked incredibly sleek and beautiful, and just so right. Buttler notes one pilot enthusing how it "cut through the air like a sharp knife through hot butter".
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
16,722
Reaction score
6,285
Unfortunately the merger has killed one or two of the old image links.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
6,661
Reaction score
5,425
Threads now merged, I see.

Have to say, since I was a kid the Draken has been my all-time favourite aeroplane. It always looked incredibly sleek and beautiful, and just so right. Buttler notes one pilot enthusing how it "cut through the air like a sharp knife through hot butter".

I second that opinion. The double delta with the small oval intakes "inside" made the Draken sci-fi and sexy, altogether.
And that upgraded variant with dog tooth and canards looks even more futuristic.
It only lacked FBW, like the Mirage III, to correct delta wings well know weaknesses.
-----
(Personal note
In my TL the Arrow analog FBW (very similar to the Concorde, F-16 and Mirage 2000 FBWs, except in 1958 rather than the mid-70's) spreads to a Canadair Skylancer via Gerald Bull and CARDE. And from the Skylancer it spreads to the world a decade earlier than OTL: in the 60's...)
 

Yankee_Aviator

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
9
Reaction score
8

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.
Do you have any more info on the EBK65/66/67 afterburners? I've always wondered why they look the way they do, it looks like an old, deformed stovepipe in my opinion, very strange shape. I have found next to nothing specifically about the Draken's afterburner on the internet and would like to know more about why it was designed the way it was, also whether it had any benefits over the afterburner design used in the English Electric Lightning.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Top