Saab 37AU Fighter Viggen: A21 − Australian JA 37 derivative (1970 − 1976)

blockhaj

Swedish "want to be" aviation specialist
Joined
9 February 2017
Messages
387
Reaction score
459
In early 1970, the Aussies sent a request to Saab that they wanted to procure the in-development fighter variant of the Saab 37 Viggen (JA 37) as a replacement for their aging Mirage III. Saab got green light for export and sent classified preliminary documentation in December 1970. Swedish standards were seen as unfavourable, despite noting good track record. Requirement specs came at the end of 1971, aiming for a 1976 delivery.

In March 1972 specs were done for the planned Saab 37AU, which was supplemented with a proposal for collaborate license production to revive the dying Australian aviation industry. During the same period the design competed against the Mirage F1 and the Northrop Cobra. On May 11 1973, a formal offer for 27, 67 or 127 aircraft was made and the Australian aviation industry was invited to become part of the projects development, including future plans, as well as green lighting license production of the engine, spare parts and electronics. It was given the preliminary serial designation A21.
Saab 37E Eurofighter for Australia (CAC).jpg
Saab 37AU mockup. Of note: what appears to be AIM-54 Phoenix missiles on the intake pylons, the aerial refueling probe on the nose, the A21-002 serial designation on the tail, the redesigned nose which appears smaller than the nose of Swedish Viggens.

The Saab 37AU was relatively different from the Swedish JA 37 base in several aspects, such as requirements for increased speed, increased lifespan and different armament etc. Saab, in collaboration with Grumman, spent lots of money into the development of oblique intakes to handle Mach 2+ flight. The project came to a stop however with the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, with only a full scale mockup of the intakes being done.

In 1976, procurement restarted. The new government found the Saab 37AU too expencive and inquired the costs of 72 AJ 37 or JA 37 aircraft. At this phase, however, the inquiry was also sent out to all other possible aircraft suppliers. Saab 37 was examined by Australian politician and diplomat Lance Barnard, the Australian ambassador to Sweden at the time (possibly after his term). American aircraft was however favorised, and in 1981 Australia ordered 75 F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters, with deliveries in 1985, ten years later than originally planned for the Saab 37AU. The A21 serial designation went over to the F/A-18 instead.

According to one source (an overall good one but not perfect), the Aussies interest in Viggen started with the Australian defence minister, who was a former ambassador to Sweden. During his time in Sweden he had observed the Swedish aviation industry and cracked a plan to use it to rebuild the dying Australian aviation industry. No name appears and no defence minister was a Swedish ambassador before that post. Neither can i find anyone who fits into this story in the slightest, except possibly Lance Barnard, who was an ambassador post 1976 which actually inspected the Viggen (although what appears to be post 1979, at which point the project was effectively dead).
 
Last edited:
Just curious… Why is this in the Alternative history section if all the above seems to be true?
 
I have this crazy vision of a Phoenix armed Aussie Viggen landing on an RAN carrier, especially the tiny HMAS Melbourne.

Now that would be alternative history!
 
I have this crazy vision of a Phoenix armed Aussie Viggen landing on an RAN carrier, especially the tiny HMAS Melbourne.

Now that would be alternative history!
Some artwork (with some artistic license) done a few years back by Chris Cooper:

ViggenRAN.webp

ViggentwinRAN.webp


And some RAAF ones:

Viggen3sqn.webp

Viggen75sqn.webp
 
I have this crazy vision of a Phoenix armed Aussie Viggen landing on an RAN carrier, especially the tiny HMAS Melbourne.

Now that would be alternative history!
Iirc there was a carrier project for the Viggen (or several idk, its Saab) around the mid 70s, but it didnt ammount to anything.
 
In early 1970, the Aussies sent a request to Saab that they wanted to procure the in-development fighter variant of the Saab 37 Viggen (JA 37) as a replacement for their aging Mirage III. Saab got green light for export and sent classified preliminary documentation in December 1970. Swedish standards were seen as unfavourable, despite noting good track record. Requirement specs came at the end of 1971, aiming for a 1976 delivery.

In March 1972 specs were done for the planned Saab 37AU, which was supplemented with a proposal for collaborate license production to revive the dying Australian aviation industry. During the same period the design competed against the Mirage F1 and the Northrop Cobra. On May 11 1973, a formal offer for 27, 67 or 127 aircraft was made and the Australian aviation industry was invited to become part of the projects development, including future plans, as well as green lighting license production of the engine, spare parts and electronics. It was given the preliminary serial designation A21.
View attachment 706544
Saab 37AU mockup. Of note: what appears to be AIM-54 Phoenix missiles on the intake pylons, the aerial refueling probe on the nose, the A21-002 serial designation on the tail, the redesigned nose which appears smaller than the nose of Swedish Viggens.

The Saab 37AU was relatively different from the Swedish JA 37 base in several aspects, such as requirements for increased speed, increased lifespan and different armament etc. Saab, in collaboration with Grumman, spent lots of money into the development of oblique intakes to handle Mach 2+ flight. The project came to a stop however with the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, with only a full scale mockup of the intakes being done.

In 1976, procurement restarted. The new government found the Saab 37AU too expencive and inquired the costs of 72 AJ 37 or JA 37 aircraft. At this phase, however, the inquiry was also sent out to all other possible aircraft suppliers. Saab 37 was examined by Australian politician and diplomat Lance Barnard, the Australian ambassador to Sweden at the time (possibly after his term). American aircraft was however favorised, and in 1981 Australia ordered 75 F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters, with deliveries in 1985, ten years later than originally planned for the Saab 37AU. The A21 serial designation went over to the F/A-18 instead.

According to one source (an overall good one but not perfect), the Aussies interest in Viggen started with the Australian defence minister, who was a former ambassador to Sweden. During his time in Sweden he had observed the Swedish aviation industry and cracked a plan to use it to rebuild the dying Australian aviation industry. No name appears and no defence minister was a Swedish ambassador before that post. Neither can i find anyone who fits into this story in the slightest, except possibly Lance Barnard, who was an ambassador post 1976 which actually inspected the Viggen (although what appears to be post 1979, at which point the project was effectively dead).
Any pictures of the oblique inlets that were developed?
 
Back in the time period they just didn't offer options comparable to Mirage III, although I would have thought Mirage F.1 would have been a better option than MIII yet. Viggen needed something innovative, like a two-seater offering Skyflash/Sparrow. They had Sidewinder, which is good for chasing in that period. Skyflash and Sparrow gave them headon engagement capability. Mirage III's offering for SARH was horrible and impossible to use effectively in practice. Otherwise Saab had good options for reconn, standoff attack, and anti-ship missiles.
 
The Mirage F1 had R530, same as the Mirage III but switched to Super 530F by 1980, more or less AIM-7F in capability.
Fact is from IOC in 1973 (and early exports) until 1979 the F1 was R530 only. This did not prevented large export orders.
Turning point in AAM history was 1982. Twice.
- Falklands for AIM-9L Sidewinder
- Bekaa valley turkey shot for AIM-7F Sparrow
Before 1982 AAMs were still kind of stuck into a Vietnam era morasse of pretty poor results... and R530 was no more shitty than AIM-7 B to E variants.
 
Last edited:
Back in the time period they just didn't offer options comparable to Mirage III, although I would have thought Mirage F.1 would have been a better option than MIII yet. Viggen needed something innovative, like a two-seater offering Skyflash/Sparrow. They had Sidewinder, which is good for chasing in that period. Skyflash and Sparrow gave them headon engagement capability. Mirage III's offering for SARH was horrible and impossible to use effectively in practice. Otherwise Saab had good options for reconn, standoff attack, and anti-ship missiles.
Viggen had a central computer, so it essentially operated like a two-seat fighter plane.
 
My dear Blockhaj,in replies # 1,9,16 & 1,no pictures appeared ?1.
 

Attachments

  • 5.png
    5.png
    39.6 KB · Views: 107
Viggen had a central computer, so it essentially operated like a two-seat fighter plane.
Assuming that you can trust "FRED", that F*ing Ridiculous Electronic Device.

I'm not sure how the Viggen compares to the electronics fit of the F-15.
 
Assuming that you can trust "FRED", that F*ing Ridiculous Electronic Device.

I'm not sure how the Viggen compares to the electronics fit of the F-15.
F-15 was ahead of its time but built as an air superiority interceptor. Viggen was a strike fighter / fighter bomber tailored for the needs of the SAF. Its central computer was designed to take over the posts usually requiring a second crew. Ive heard its central computer wasnt surpassed until the introduction of the Panavia Tornado about 10 years later. The JA 37 strike interceptor variant however competed fairly against the F-15 in several competitions. In Japan it lost out to the F-15 due to its shorter range, production status and politics.
 
Thank's Blockhaj, I wasn't even aware that the Viggen was considered by the Japanese.

Regards
Pioneer

 
Thank's Blockhaj, I wasn't even aware that the Viggen was considered by the Japanese.

Regards
Pioneer
Well, it was shown off to most major powers, actively competing against the competition of the 60s, 70s and 80s. It was however too tailored for the Swedish needs and lost out because of it. But even then, bribing and politics was part of the game since way before, so its hard to say if it lost out due to specs soly, or if politics and corruption played a part (based on the Swiss Saab 35/Mirage III scandal).
 
Well, it was shown off to most major powers, actively competing against the competition of the 60s, 70s and 80s. It was however too tailored for the Swedish needs and lost out because of it. But even then, bribing and politics was part of the game since way before, so its hard to say if it lost out due to specs soly, or if politics and corruption played a part (based on the Swiss Saab 35/Mirage III scandal).
Also the American engine - it was a major issue for any export sales.
 
Also the American engine - it was a major issue for any export sales.
Not from an ITAR aspect I believe. The Volvo RM8 turbofan was essentially a heavily modified licence-built variant of the Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine which was a commercial engine not a military one and thus unlikely to have had any sort of ITAR restriction in place.
 
FWIW, ITAR was not established until 1976, as part of the AECA (Arms Control Export Act).
 
FWIW, ITAR was not established until 1976, as part of the AECA (Arms Control Export Act).
It doesn't matter since it acts retrospectively plus most export attempts were post anyway. That said, they could still stop under EAR.
 
Not from an ITAR aspect I believe. The Volvo RM8 turbofan was essentially a heavily modified licence-built variant of the Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine which was a commercial engine not a military one and thus unlikely to have had any sort of ITAR restriction in place.
The CFM-56 still had some significant export restrictions on it. Admittedly, it was based on the F101 core.
 
Re the Indian deal, I acknowledge that the deal was supposedly due to US restrictions on the engine - I am not sure of the specifics here but it may have come down to individual sub-components.

By way of an example of what I mean, back in 2012, Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC), Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation (HSC), and its then parent company United Technologies were fined $75M fine as part of an ITAR breach related to selling PT6C engines to China, for use in the Z-10. Now normally the PT6 is not ITAR controlled being used in thousands of platforms around the world. However, in this case the engines were fitted with a HSC developed Electronic Engine Control using software, made in the United States and modified for a military helicopter application. As such, it was a defense article and required a U.S. export license which had not been gained thus resulting in the fine (amongst other aspects).
 
If Pierre Trudeau hadn't axed the Bonaventure, maybe, just maybe, a Sea Thunderbolt might have found a Canadian home!

Umm, HMCS Bonaventure had already lost its fighters back in 1962. The Banshees had barely fit physically and not at all with the Bonnie's priority assigned role - ASW.

In the spirit of the AltHist origins of this thread, Archibald touches it with a needle. Had the GoC over-ruled Naval Staff's RCN-wide emphasis on ASW and insisted upon carrier fighters, the Bonaventure would have embarked a navalized version of MND Paul Hellyer's beloved CF-5. And Hellyer's erstwhile mentor, Northrop's T.V. Jones, had always wanted the F-5 to be a light carrier fighter ;)
 
Umm, HMCS Bonaventure had already lost its fighters back in 1962. The Banshees had barely fit physically and not at all with the Bonnie's priority assigned role - ASW.

In the spirit of the AltHist origins of this thread, Archibald touches it with a needle. Had the GoC over-ruled Naval Staff's RCN-wide emphasis on ASW and insisted upon carrier fighters, the Bonaventure would have embarked a navalized version of MND Paul Hellyer's beloved CF-5. And Hellyer's erstwhile mentor, Northrop's T.V. Jones, had always wanted the F-5 to be a light carrier fighter ;)
Except this was the proposed light carrier fighter version of the N-156NN (the N-156F became the F-5A):


scan0003.jpg


N-165NN PD-2706.jpg
 
Umm, HMCS Bonaventure had already lost its fighters back in 1962. The Banshees had barely fit physically and not at all with the Bonnie's priority assigned role - ASW.

In the spirit of the AltHist origins of this thread, Archibald touches it with a needle. Had the GoC over-ruled Naval Staff's RCN-wide emphasis on ASW and insisted upon carrier fighters, the Bonaventure would have embarked a navalized version of MND Paul Hellyer's beloved CF-5. And Hellyer's erstwhile mentor, Northrop's T.V. Jones, had always wanted the F-5 to be a light carrier fighter ;)

I didn't got the correct spelling of his name - but yes, this was the A-hole I was thinking about. Hellyer: hell of a year, for the RCAF...
 

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom