Swedish arms industry if Sweden was part of NATO?

Lascaris

Lascaris

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
14 November 2008
Messages
271
Reaction score
312
So lets say that in 1948-49 the Swedes opt for joining NATO alongside Norway and Denmark, it had been proposed after all and there was reasonably strong support within Sweden for it. How does this affect to development of Swedish arms industries over the coming decades? There is no reason to believe there won;t be a strong Swedish arms industry given how at the time it is already reasonably well developed and Sweden has a strong industrial sector.

But for example being in NATO makes Saab a much stronger contender for exports within NATO on one hand, there is no reason Draken is not a candidate along with Mirage III against F-104G for example. On the other hand is there a Draken/Viggen/Gripen if Sweden was been a NATO member or Saab ended up building under license F-104s and F-16s instead? You could probably argue for either?

And would Swedish aircraft design notably benefit in the 1950s early 1960s from full access to NATO? For example unless I'm mistaken European industries did receive data on things like area ruling in the 1950s?
 
A very real fear of politicians in Finland was Sweden becoming an open member of NATO. may well have created external political pressures for Finland to join the WP. (USSR. was Finlands biggest trading partner until the 1980's)having non alligned 'neutral' buffer states suited both sides

Let's not forget both Sweden and Finland were de facto NATO. members, more so in later years, activly sharing intelligence and defense technology with the NATO. allies.

I wonder if the 'Alternative history' section should be moved over to the 'what-if' site ?
 
TsrJoe said:
I wonder if the 'Alternative history' section should be moved over to the 'what-if' site ?
Click to expand...
Interesting.
"Alternative", by definition is "the other one from two existing possibilities" while I see "what it" a synonym of "optative" because there is related to a multiple possibility scenario. I think the selective criteria should be based on it.
 
Sweden's industrial near peers in NATO, Belgium and Netherlands soon dropped out of military aircraft production for subcontracting. Sweden's cold war military exports were a handful to Austria and a sympathy buy from Denmark, like buying girl scout cookies from a co workers kid. Sweden's requirements were unique. However NATO requirement NMBR 1 was right up their alley. This could have led to the Swedish aerospace industry becoming more integrated into NATO
 
I did do a UK-Swedish thread and I can certainly see a number of cross pollination effects had Sweden joined early.
Some of Sweden efforts seem similar to and mate neatly with both UK and French efforts. As there is with Germany.

UK nearly bought Swedish 120mm gun system, though the RN wasn't happy with the turret.
There was potential for coastal forces cooperation and the RN might offer a part of it's force as it gives up that type.
They'd have been a good partner on the Green Mace effort and similar effort in France.
The Swedes bought up and solved the HTP Torpedo program.
The whole Franco-Swedish Anti-ship Missile could have saved a lot of RN effort.

Their tactical nuclear Missile effort looks familiar. This would become a massive international argument as Soviets and Americans would trade missile sites. The USSR would view Swedish misdile batteries that could reach swathes of the Baltic states, Belarus and Russia a major threat. Cuban Missile Crisis Level potentially.

They may have been quite interested in early adoption of the hybrid rocket-jet fighters. Which might have accelerated the SR.54 along from prototype to production. Making this something that lives and dies through the 50's to early 60’s.

They bought Bloodhound, but could have bought it earlier. They might have looked at Seaslug like Germany did. Though Tartar is more likely.

They would have similar issues and desires on any ABM defence system to UK and France.
Might have opted into SIGS and Broomstick.
Would really want Mauler and might have chosen Rapier or Cotral(spelling?). I don't see them opting for Chaparral.

They bought Hunters anyway to supplement their own efforts. But a reciprocal buy of Lancers would ease issues for the RAF. Drakken could allow, with the volume in that nose, RAF to continue radar guided Missile effort.
Drakken with a rocket, could provide Lightning to F.177RAF performance at lower cost. Frankly Drakken over Lightning radically changes things.

UK could have joined them on the A.36, as a tactical strike and support system. Being slightly earlier than NMBR.3, this might become the backup option and 'intetim' solution. Which might in turn undermine their System 37 effort.
Though Swedish Harrier is not unreasonable.

Though another thought......Swedish Buccaneers. Opting into that might tip the Germans to allow the Marineflieger to buy their own preference and probably suck Denmark in as well.

The Strv103 nearly won Army orders and would have worked well in Germany. Being under 45tons

We could easily see Sweden either throwing their weight behind the .280 round and Belgian FAL. Which would only upset the Americans more. Though they could lure Germans to handover the roller delayed system.
Though they could push a 6.5 by 45 round based on reduced power 6.5 by 55 Swedish.
 
zen said:
UK nearly bought Swedish 120mm gun system, though op the RN wasn't happy with the turret.
Click to expand...
That's intriguing. The twelve Dutch Holland- and Friesland-class destroyers built in the 1950s each had two Bofors gun turrets, designed on request for the Dutch navy, the two Swedish Halland-class destroyers had the same. The Dutch navy was so pleased with these turrets, two refurbished Bofors turrets were used for the Tromp-class GW-frigates of the late 1970s - to be fair, the refurbished turrets were also cheaper than new ones.
The UK-pattern twin 4.5" gun turrets fitted to the six 1960s Van Speijk-class frigates (modified Leander-class) were less well appreciated; during the late 1970s rebuild of all six ships, they were replaced by single 76mm OTO Melara turrets - the same ones chosen for the twelve Kortenaer-class frigates.
 
Last edited:
Antonio said:
Interesting.
"Alternative", by definition is "the other one from two existing possibilities" while I see "what it" a synonym of "optative" because there is related to a multiple possibility scenario. I think the selective criteria should be based on it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that "optative" is the word that you are looking for. By definition, optative is an expression of a singular wish or desire.

A singular wish may describe the opening post out of many scenarios in this section - because that helps delineate constraints. But the discussions which follow, usually, develop into the manifold options that you suggest.

Potential fates for the Alternative History and Future Speculation section have been well-covered:
-- https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...-and-future-speculation-section-wanted.33847/
 
I am not sure that this thread helps us look at Swedish unbuilt projects or alternative options for the Swedish armed forces which effect them.

The impact of Swedish and Finnish membership of either NATO or the Warsaw Pact requires too great departure from real history.

But in their impact on defence projects the strands go off in predictable directions:

Greater procurement of or co-participation in NATO or WP programmes.

Greater procurement by NATO or WP countries of Swedish or Finnish defence equipment.

In both cases the folks at Whatifmodelers, Shipbucket or Beyond the Sprues are better placed to dream up ideas.
 
uk 75 said:
I am not sure that this thread helps us look at Swedish unbuilt projects or alternative options for the Swedish armed forces which effect them.
Click to expand...
It's the alternate history section of the forum. And one should note that alternate options do not happen in a vacuum. There were reasons they were taken OTL usually not connected to strictly technical issues.
 
Last edited:
royabulgaf said:
Sweden's industrial near peers in NATO, Belgium and Netherlands soon dropped out of military aircraft production for subcontracting. Sweden's cold war military exports were a handful to Austria and a sympathy buy from Denmark, like buying girl scout cookies from a co workers kid.
Click to expand...
Saab going the way of Fokker is not unlikely in my opinion, but hardly a given as well. Unlike the Dutch and Belgian aircraft industries the Swedish one is intact from WW2 in 1949. Actually not just intact J29 has already flown and is about to enter production and development of Saab 32 is already underway. Hence Saab is potentially much better suited to survive.

I'm inclined to argue the fate of the Draken is what decides what happens to Saab and the 651 aircraft built OTL are nothing to sneeze at in absolute numbers. Soo how is Draken development actually altered? Is Saab 210 needed as a subscale model if the Swedes are getting NACA data on aerodynamics for example? Can it get actually improved (OBWI how a version with RB106 would fare?) over the OTL design? Can the Swedes get more industrial cooperation? I short of doubt you'd actually interest the RAF on Draken and the Germans are out of the question on bribery political grounds but what about the Dutch who after all had already considerable links with the Swedish arms industry?
 
The main impact on Sweden of NATO membership in the 50s would be its relationship with the US and its industry.
Saab as the only manufacturer would be in a better place to deal with this than its numerous rivals in Britain.
Canada with Canadair and De Haviland comes to mind. It both licence produced the Sabre and developed its own planes.
Lansen and Draken would compete for various NATO contracts against Meteors and Hunters or Thunderstreaks, flashes, and Super Sabres.
The big 1960s NATO peocurement is Starfighter. Would Sweden buy them too or stick with Draken for the same reason the UK bought Lightnings Probably.
A NATO Draken might get Dutch and even Norwegian and Canadian orders (it is more useful than F5). Denmark ordered them and Starfighter.
W Germany is unlikely not to buy American. Starfighter and then Phantoms.
Britain might be tempted to co-operate on Viggen which in turn might kill off MRCA/Tornado.
The 70s "Sale of the Century" is unlikely to see F16 beaten by Mirage F1 or Viggen. But a NATO Sweden may find it hard to develop Gripen if cheap licence build F16s or F18s are available.
A UK/Swedish Viggen and then Gripen might appeal to Australia and Canada instead of F18.
Without Tornado BAe and Saab may develop a different Typhoon from our time. Germany might then buy F18 instead or join France in Rafale.
 
uk 75 said:
The main impact on Sweden of NATO membership in the 50s would be its relationship with the US and its industry.
Saab as the only manufacturer would be in a better place to deal with this than its numerous rivals in Britain.
Canada with Canadair and De Haviland comes to mind. It both licence produced the Sabre and developed its own planes.
Lansen and Draken would compete for various NATO contracts against Meteors and Hunters or Thunderstreaks, flashes, and Super Sabres.
The big 1960s NATO peocurement is Starfighter. Would Sweden buy them too or stick with Draken for the same reason the UK bought Lightnings Probably.
A NATO Draken might get Dutch and even Norwegian and Canadian orders (it is more useful than F5). Denmark ordered them and Starfighter.
W Germany is unlikely not to buy American. Starfighter and then Phantoms.
Click to expand...
Lets stop a bit at the Draken, the future of Saab mostly revolves around it. There are a few questions I think.

First how does Draken actually compare to Mirage III which I'd think would be the main antagonist at least in the export market? Performance wise the two aircraft appear to me roughly comparable, if anything Draken was at least somewhat superior apparently in electronics and had a lower take off run. On the downside apparently it was quite a bit more difficult to fly. So would there be serous technical/operational reasons to prefer one over the other?

Second does a NATO Sweden with better access to the rest of the west leads to the more advanced Draken variants, like the thin wing Project 35:a actually being built?

Lastly how does Draken affect the whole NATO saga over VTOL aircraft in the early 1960s? Draken offers a simpler immediately working alternative, with its ability to fly off roads with comparatively little maintainance. But this has potentially serious side effects outside Sweden. If in Britain for example the requirement that led to P.1154 dies in the cradle do you see BAC 581/583 actually developed in its place and quite possibly entering service?
 
Had Drakken garnered more NATO orders I can see potential for AI.23, Red Top and auto interception. This fits Swedish needs very well.
A Swedish order for RB.106 "Thames" would trigger UK government injection of cash to RR to get this up and running. Though by that stage it might be RB.127
 
uk 75 said:
…. A NATO Draken might get Dutch and even Norwegian and Canadian orders (it is more useful than F5. ….
Click to expand...
While CF-5 production might have profitable for Canadair, it proved a dud in RCAF service because it lacked the range needed to patrol Canada’s long coast-lines.
How did Drakken range compare?
Would the RCAF have bought Swedish-built ejection seats?
Would Drakken’s handling problems (e.g. deep stall) have been massaged out (e.g. conically-drooped leading edges) during longer production runs and more variants built?

What if the USA was less willing to give away millions of dollars to support foreign military sales? Would this decision open up the market to smaller manufacturers like SAAB?
 
What about the Swedish-built Pbv 302 armored personnel carrier?
It was about the same size and weight as the American M113 APC (12 tons) but was armed with a 20mm cannon. That armament allowed it to compete with larger Infantry Fighting Vehicles like the West German Marder, American Bradley or British Warrior IFVs.
PBY 302 would be more attractive to less-wealthy nations with smaller cargo airplanes.
 
Last edited:
What about Swedish ejection seats?
During WW2, (German) Heinkel and Swedish SAAB ran parallel developments of ejection seats. SAAB started with compressed air, then Bofors tested a gunpowder-driven ejection seat on 1943. SAAB needed an ejection seat to help pilots clear the pusher propeller on the J.21 fighter.
 
Last edited:
zen said:
Had Drakken garnered more NATO orders I can see potential for AI.23, Red Top and auto interception. This fits Swedish needs very well.
A Swedish order for RB.106 "Thames" would trigger UK government injection of cash to RR to get this up and running. Though by that stage it might be RB.127
Click to expand...
AI.23 was certainly superior to PS-02. Is it superior to the PS-03 in use by the later Drakens though? RB.106 seems a short of obvious idea but then I never quite understood the logic of cancelling it in the first place.
 
It is Draken, not Drakken. SAAB's jets:
- Tunnan
- Lansen
- Draken
- Viggen
- Gripen
 
Last edited:
Sweden sold a lot of kit to NATO nations of one sort or another.

Some random thoughts in my head:
More Penguin ASMs on FACs and frigates, could see W. Germany going for these on their FACs instead of Exocet.
RBS-15 ASMs in the 1980s.
Continued development of Sidewinder/Sparrow/Falcon by Sweden with NATO partners, probably inclusion in ASRAAM, more Sky Flash involvement, perhaps getting Active Sky Flash off the ground too.
Swedish licence-production of US or UK radars and fire-control kit, would make Draken and Viggen even better.
Less engine woes (less resale clauses to worry about).
Draken would give F-104 a real hard time in the 1960s I think.
Viggen would outclass Jaguar and be a direct Mirage F1/YF-16/YF-17 competitor, it might even clinch the Eurogroup fighter deal in 1974.
Swedish subs might challenge the Type 209 series for sales.
Swedish FACs Vs La Combatte and Lurssen types.
 
Hood said:
Penguin ASMs
Click to expand...
They are from Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace of Norway.
Other than that, I agree Sweden being part of NATO earlier would have improved its chances of selling military equipment to NATO partners.
 
The big 1960s NATO peocurement is Starfighter. Would Sweden buy them too or stick with Draken for the same reason the UK bought Lightnings Probably.
Click to expand...

I invisage, even if Sweden joined NATO, I would think their intelligence in retaining the mindset of dispersed operations would have remained a part of their psyche. I also think the ridiculous long take off and landing performance of the F-104 Starfighter wouldn't be appreciated by the Swedish military.

First how does Draken actually compare to Mirage III which I'd think would be the main antagonist at least in the export market?
Click to expand...

I think, if anything, the export potential of the F35 Draken was irrufutably stymied because of the combination of Sweden's percieved neutrality and the risk of a given nation that purchased Swedish weapons being cut off from spares and technical support, if they used them in a conflict/war. So I would think the Draken would be a greater competitor to the ubiquitous Mirage III, especially with it's Rolls-Royce Avon engine.

As for the Viggen, the truth is, it's Swedish-centric nature of it's inception and design was probably always going to be it's achilles heel in terms of export.

Regards
Pioneer
 
JFC Fuller said:
EE/BAC came up with a range of proposals for providing an attack capability in the Lightning, such as the proposal to Australia that included an extended ventral pack providing a weapons bay able to carry 1,000lb bombs, or a recce pack, and a doppler navigator. IOTL the AI.23 was given A2G modes and the Saudi's actually used the type in that role. RAF Lightnings performed low-level intercept missions in both Germany and the UK. The radar was effectively useless at low-level interception but it should have been possible to provide terrain clearance functionality - this was proposed to the Australians.
Click to expand...

JFC Fuller said:
The multirole pack proposed, developed from 1959 onwards, allowed for carriage of 3 x 1,000lb bombs without using the over-wing or outer-wing pylons. There were porposals for Bullpup and large batteries of 2" rockets (I have seen one configuration proposed with 122 but higher should have been possible).
Click to expand...

Sorry to detract from the Alternative History aspect, but is there anywhere on this fine forum that depicts these said proposals of the EE Lightning denoted by JFC Fuller?
I've done a search, but to no avail.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom