Saab Viggen for the RAF?

[Hood]

Isn't Viggen way more expensive than Jaguar though? So numbers would be much less

Is that by production cost or due to the imported avionics etc. or R&D amortisation? Viggen had a pretty respectable production run (329).

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.

Political priorities change, but even if a nation withdraws the project might still survive - a home grown is often cancelled and then all the work is sidelined. Saying that a lot of multinational projects, especially armoured vehicles, in this period got to prototype stage but still floundered and were cancelled.
The rampant inflation of the 60s and 70s didn't help, if you started again the base cost was always going to be higher and the new technology that came along since you started the original project and can now incorporate into the second design means more costs too.

The big bonus is that you don't need to pay the hefty upfront R&D costs and can share the load - that's really what was most attractive. Winning a decent workshare was a negative reaction that had to be overcome but if you were a big player like the UK or France then usually they could carve themselves a decent share.

Even Hawk at one point might have been Anglo-Italian or Anglo-Australian or Anglo-Italian-Australian. All combinations were followed, I think its notable that Sweden is about the only Western European nation that was never invited into a collaboration - presumably due to political considerations for neutrality etc. despite having acquired some advanced British kit (Bloodhound, Skyflash) and of course Bulldog and Britain investigating the S-Tank and buying Carl Gustavs etc.

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.

I think politically SAAB would find it too difficult to sell Viggen to a NATO nation directly, hence why licence-production is more likely. In any event we know that SAAB looked at three potential versions tailored to the RAF so we know the idea of cooperation with a NATO member was deemed feasible.

I thought Viggen could use sky flash?!

Yes it could, my comment was more that it could use Skyflash from the off, unlike Phantom for example. There would be a lot of Phantom-Viggen overlap with an UK AJ37, which is probably why it wouldn't be done, but the addition of a multi-role radar would make it much more formidable that the historical Jaguar GR.1/3 in ground attack - though again at risk of duplicating Tornado in some roles.

 

[tomo pauk]

Yes it could, my comment was more that it could use Skyflash from the off, unlike Phantom for example. There would be a lot of Phantom-Viggen overlap with an UK AJ37, which is probably why it wouldn't be done, but the addition of a multi-role radar would make it much more formidable that the historical Jaguar GR.1/3 in ground attack - though again at risk of duplicating Tornado in some roles.

With Viggen licence-produced in the UK (with some parts shipped from Sweden?), there is no need to go with MRCA/Tornado.
Go with delta-canard by late 1970s instead, so it is in service by late 1980s at least? In the meantime, adopt the JA-37 (fighter radar, Skyflash, cannon etc.).

 

[zen]

Arguably the Viggen ought to be cheaper to run and thus a natural successor to QRA Lightnings.

Flexibility for the MRI missions makes it more ideal than Jaguar.

Navalisation might be more vexing.

The more radical twin 'double barrel' would be instead of MRCA and likely ADV as well. But potentially a better platform for AI.24.....which ever version of that comes about.

 

[uk 75]

The Viggen served the Swedes in strike, air defence and maritime strike versions. These would have been adaptable to UK requirements.
If British Aerospace had replaced BAC and HS in the 1960s Viggen would have been an ideal big programme.
Losing AFVG and Jaguar and turning to Viggen would have made sense to a Labour Government for whom Sweden was a model state.
Though France might have been annoyed the Belgians, Danes, Dutch and Norwegians in NATO might have bought the resulting aircraft.
Even France might have been glad to build Jaguar as an Alpha Jet precursor and focus on Mirage for the AdA..
Collaboration with France on Concorde and Airbus could have been offered as a substitute.

 

[zen]

Would be interesting as part of a wider package, such as S-Tank, and reciprocal Sea Dart for the Swedes. Possibly Sea Wolf or a Land Wolf variant could result as well.

Possibility if using variant of Pegasus that a limited number of Harriers are purchased.

And an 'under the table' deal on nuclear cleared Viggen......

A UK-Swedish Viggen package might sway India.

Would be ironic if benefited Airbus.

 

[red admiral]

Is that by production cost or due to the imported avionics etc. or R&D amortisation? Viggen had a pretty respectable production run (329).

Viggen is quite a lot bigger, more complex (flight envelope, radar etc) and produced in fewer numbers than Jaguar. I'd be amazed if production or operational costs weren't significantly higher.

The R&D costs from Saab for the UK modded Viggens aren't non-trivial

It's not that Viggen isn't "better" than Jaguar but it would have sacrificed numbers (and defence industry). If there was more money then just buy more Tornados instead that are "better" again

 

[zen]

I don't think the Swedes or SEPCAT had any real running cost data until the 1970's.
But the choice for Viggen is really either instead of P.1154 or the F4M, as the shift to turn the supersonic trainer into a MRI platform is later on.
Strictly the ideal moment is at yhe point of cancellation if the P.1154.

And in terms of numbers, like with the Jaguar. The MRI mission set dictates about 175 single seater and 25 dual seat trainers.
Some 200 as a minimum figure this is likely to be added to as being cheaper to run than a Lightning or an F4. Hence why I suggest something like a 400 airframe total for the UK.

So local production and a figure slightly higher than Swedish orders. The result is not likely to be as bad as some are trying to suggest.

 

[Silencer1]

Could we imagine such a situation, that UK withdaw from MRCA project just after first "Tornado" made a maiden flight? So, UK have all experience in design/cooperation/prodcution of this aircraft.
But, instead of continue to participate in Panavia Gmbh' efforts, it decided to purchase "Viggen" or built it in cooperation with SAAB. So, Germany and Italy could use Tornado IDS in its dedicated role in Europe.
However, Great Britain uses SAAB Viggen in the same theatre as interdictor/strike and, domestically, as interceptor - instead of Tornado ADV, which has been in real life produced only for UK.
So, I wonder, if the fixed-wing "Viggen" could perform same missions as variable-geometry "Tornado" as strike aircraft, with the low-level penetration capabilities and good take-off/landing characteristics?
This is just my "what if" version, based on limited knowledge.
P.S. Curiously, both "Tornado" and "Viggen" have a rare common feature - thrust reversers. Honestly, I couldn't remeber any modern combat jet with such feature.

 

[Archibald]

Better to throw the Jaguar under the Viggen bus, than the Tornado. Viggen is right between the two, performance wise. Can't replace the Tornado, but buries the Jaguar for sure.

 

[blockhaj]

Saab 37XE − Export, England

Not to be confused with the later Saab 37E − Eurofighter project.

I just came by to show the Aussie variant, Saab 37AU: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/saab-37au-fighter-viggen-a21-−-australian-ja-37-derivative-1970-−-1976.42066/#post-617750

 

[blockhaj]

Here, from some book.

 

[Scott Kenny]

For engine, if at all possible, get the straight-through Pegasus variant. IIRC 28klbs thrust dry, and with that huge bypass ratio it made 56klbs in afterburner(!)

 

[Scott Kenny]

More recent read-through.

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.

That's a convenient rule of thumb to use, however.

Any luck finding those references for better cost models?

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

This, but number of countries participating +1, for the overall manglement team.

 

[duker]

Isn't Viggen way more expensive than Jaguar though? So numbers would be much less

Yes. Its 50% heavier plane. Plus the Tornado was coming for the RAF heavy attack requirement. If the jaguar wasnt around the Harrier GR3 was the lighter strike fighter that would have been built in larger numbers - plus it was all british and had many of the dispersed operations features of the Viggen

 

[Scott Kenny]

3rd read-through.

It might be possible. Viggen instead of AFVG and Jaguar (as a striker, it'd stay light and cheap as a trainer replacing Hawk), I would expect the UK-Viggen to have mostly UK avionics and possibly engine. TF41 with F100 afterburner would have about the right power levels (different afterburner than what's on Spey-202, so 25-27klbs thrust in AB), and it'd have good STOL performance for off-airfield operations. I think it may need better avionics than what the Jaguar GR.1s had, like getting a full TFR set plus LRMTS.

I guess the real question is could we make Viggen work for both the Jaguar GR1 and Tornado IDS roles?

 

[CV12Hornet]

3rd read-through.

It might be possible. Viggen instead of AFVG and Jaguar (as a striker, it'd stay light and cheap as a trainer replacing Hawk), I would expect the UK-Viggen to have mostly UK avionics and possibly engine. TF41 with F100 afterburner would have about the right power levels (different afterburner than what's on Spey-202, so 25-27klbs thrust in AB), and it'd have good STOL performance for off-airfield operations. I think it may need better avionics than what the Jaguar GR.1s had, like getting a full TFR set plus LRMTS.

I guess the real question is could we make Viggen work for both the Jaguar GR1 and Tornado IDS roles?

Probably not. The Tornado IDS is a significantly more capable strike machine in a variety of fashions than the Viggen.

 

[tomo pauk]

Probably not. The Tornado IDS is a significantly more capable strike machine in a variety of fashions than the Viggen.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Care to elaborate?

Better range, higher payload, IIRC better avionics.

It's why I asked about stretching the UK-Viggen a couple feet to make a larger fuel tank. Because if the stretch would allow for carrying the equivalent of the standard external fuel tanks internally, that would likely match the range of the Tornado IDS.

While that would not directly fix the issue with payload, not needing a couple pylons for fuel tanks helps a lot. It looks like the standard Tornado GR.1/GR.4 loadout has 2 drop tanks.

And better avionics should be expected with a 1967 aircraft versus a 1981 aircraft. Avionics can be upgraded. "Viggen GR.4" could have Tornado GR.1 avionics, "Viggen GR.7" gets Tornado GR.4 avionics.

 

[tomo pauk]

I'm certain that the fellow member can speak for himself

 

[CV12Hornet]

I mean, Scott Kenny's got the right of it: better range, better payload, newer avionics more directly suited toward the long-range strike missions, and frankly the VG wing makes a big difference for the kind of low-alt supersonic sprints the Tornado is aimed toward. I'm fairly skeptical about minor fuselage plug redressing the gap in range between the two - the Viggen is a 500-nm striker, the Tornado 800-nm, that's not something easily made up.

Further, the Tornado has one big political advantage: it's British through and through. It keeps foreign currency, jobs, and expertise in Britain, far moreso than a Viggen license.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'm fairly skeptical about minor fuselage plug redressing the gap in range between the two - the Viggen is a 500-nm striker, the Tornado 800-nm, that's not something easily made up.

A 3ft stretch on a 6ft diameter cylindrical fuselage would make ~4000lbs of fuel. And that's very close to a 50% fuel increase.

Further, the Tornado has one big political advantage: it's British through and through. It keeps foreign currency, jobs, and expertise in Britain, far moreso than a Viggen license.

That is the big problem.

 

[CV12Hornet]

A 3ft stretch on a 6ft diameter cylindrical fuselage would make ~4000lbs of fuel. And that's very close to a 50% fuel increase.

It's also similar to the difference between the Hornet and Super Hornet, and I can tell you that the increase in range that resulted was not enough to make up this kind of gap. Among other things, the stretched variant would likely have the uprated RM8 variant of the JA37, which means increased fuel burn.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It's also similar to the difference between the Hornet and Super Hornet, and I can tell you that the increase in range that resulted was not enough to make up this kind of gap. Among other things, the stretched variant would likely have the uprated RM8 variant of the JA37, which means increased fuel burn.

Super Bug has other issues that contribute to the piss-poor range.

Compare Tornado ADV versus IDS.

 

[tomo pauk]

I mean, Scott Kenny's got the right of it: better range, better payload, newer avionics more directly suited toward the long-range strike missions, and frankly the VG wing makes a big difference for the kind of low-alt supersonic sprints the Tornado is aimed toward. I'm fairly skeptical about minor fuselage plug redressing the gap in range between the two - the Viggen is a 500-nm striker, the Tornado 800-nm, that's not something easily made up.

Sources give different figures for combat radius for the Tornado, the lowest number being 500 miles in lo-lo-lo mission. Italian Wikipedia gives 640 miles, without specifying the details. Seems like the Viggen's range was compromised by it having just one drop tank vs. two on the Tornado - something that should need to be addressed in order to up the range/radius. I was not able to come out with some firm radius figures for the AJ-37

Payload - Tornado was many things, the payload master it was not. The heaviest practical payload in the 1980s seems to be two Kormoran missiles, vs. two similar A-S misilles on the Viggen. Viggen was also with more racks for air-to-surface payload.
As-is, the Viggen was with the advanced electroics of the day, incoroprating the radar for aiming puropses as well as for obstacle-evasion. British can install better stuff on their Viggens once that is available.

My tl;dr from this is that the only real disadvantage the Viggen might've had was the range/radius, and that until the more substantial drop tank(s) are installed, and/or the IFR probe.

Further, the Tornado has one big political advantage: it's British through and through. It keeps foreign currency, jobs, and expertise in Britain, far moreso than a Viggen license.

People at Panavia GmbH might've disagreed with this statement.
Viggen, but with British electronics, British engine, British weapons, British-made airframe and British system integration returns a lot to the British industry and government. It is also a better RoI when exported.

 

[MadRat]

A single afterburning Pegasus sounds like a minimum of 32000 pounds of static wet thrust at sea level. Deviate from Viggen with a fuselage plug and internal bay. Replace Oerlikon with Adens. Make a proposal for a maritime CATOBAR version. Keep the thrust reverser and rough field gear of the Viggen, but use scaled up tires and brakes.

An Interceptor version could put a 2,000-3,000 L fuel tank in the bay. Red Top (or Firestreak) on each cheek. Four semi-recessed Sky Flash under fuselage. Options for two additional Sky Flash for 2,000 L fuel tanks under each wing. Exchange Red Tops for a centerline 1,000 L fuel tank. Optional Sidewinders on extra pylon near wing tip.

Nuke striker version would put a bomb or SRAM type of missile in the internal bay. An additional SRAM or 2,000 L fuel tank under each wing. Guns removed. Optional one each SPJ and RWR on pylon near wing tips.

Attack versions would use it for a pair of 500 kg bombs internally, utilizing trapezes to lower bombs into air stream. Trapezes also make it possible for laser guided bomb versions. An additional MER rack or 2,000 L fuel tank under each wing. Optional one each SPJ and RWR on pylon near wing tips.

Multipurpose version uses a cimbination of the above options. Think how special it would be for carrying a pair each of Sky Flash, Sidewinders, and 2,000 L fuel tanks; to self escort on a delivery of a pair of 500 kg PGMs. With or without the optional one each SPJ and RWR on pylon near wing tips.