Kadija_Man said:
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.
SAAB J 35 Draken
- Thread starter rousseau
- Start date
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.
- Joined
- 18 March 2008
- Messages
- 3,529
- Reaction score
- 885
Kadija_Man said:
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.
- Joined
- 18 March 2008
- Messages
- 3,529
- Reaction score
- 885
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!
- Joined
- 21 May 2006
- Messages
- 2,834
- Reaction score
- 1,923
Kadija_Man said:
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
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,088
- Reaction score
- 12,899
Abraham Gubler said:
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.
- Joined
- 18 March 2008
- Messages
- 3,529
- Reaction score
- 885
TomS said:
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
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 601
GTX said:
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.
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.
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)
(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:
- Joined
- 17 October 2006
- Messages
- 2,355
- Reaction score
- 994
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.
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.
www.dassault-aviation.com
The Mirage III Milan even never passed airshow success either.
Milan: origins, characteristics and performance data
The Milan 01, based on the Mirage III E, was equipped with retractable whiskers. It completed its maiden flight at Melun-Villaroche on May 29, 1970, with Guy Mitaux-Maurouard at the controls.
www.dassault-aviation.com
Last edited:
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.
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.
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 16,938
- Reaction score
- 21,871
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
- 9 February 2017
- Messages
- 389
- Reaction score
- 464
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).
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).
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.
Draken air intakes were more canard-friendly than those of Mirages. C'est la vie.
blockhaj
Swedish "want to be" aviation specialist
- Joined
- 9 February 2017
- Messages
- 389
- Reaction score
- 464
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.
- Joined
- 3 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,433
- Reaction score
- 1,359
Do you have any information about this variant for Israel?
blockhaj
Swedish "want to be" aviation specialist
- Joined
- 9 February 2017
- Messages
- 389
- Reaction score
- 464
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.
blockhaj
Swedish "want to be" aviation specialist
- Joined
- 9 February 2017
- Messages
- 389
- Reaction score
- 464
If i remember the story correctly the Swedish government said no for political reasons as Israel was at war.
blockhaj
Swedish "want to be" aviation specialist
- Joined
- 9 February 2017
- Messages
- 389
- Reaction score
- 464
Here is a Swedish forum thread on the Saab 29 subject: https://forum.flyghistoria.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1345
However lets not get too offtopic here.
However lets not get too offtopic here.
- Joined
- 25 June 2014
- Messages
- 1,564
- Reaction score
- 1,484
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:
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.
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:
Seems we have two Draken threads on this forum... dear moderators, up for a merger ?
- Joined
- 25 June 2014
- Messages
- 1,564
- Reaction score
- 1,484
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".
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".
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,261
Unfortunately the merger has killed one or two of the old image links.
- Joined
- 25 June 2014
- Messages
- 1,564
- Reaction score
- 1,484
The first image link was broken before the merge. I haven't noticed any others, but if there are any then they probably were as well.
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
- 12 May 2021
- Messages
- 49
- Reaction score
- 73
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:
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,605
- Reaction score
- 6,889
blockhaj
Swedish "want to be" aviation specialist
- Joined
- 9 February 2017
- Messages
- 389
- Reaction score
- 464
The reason is a mix of available space, CG angle and placement of the engine, angle of exhaust and AB effect.
- Joined
- 25 June 2014
- Messages
- 1,564
- Reaction score
- 1,484
Not sure if this link has been posted here already:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080305042213/http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/text/35draken.htm
The most extensive AJ 35 Draken upgrade, 35 MOD level 4, would have consisted of new outer wings giving a 1 m greater span with small dogtooths, a fin extension, additional elevon actuators and some kind of canards -- most likely flip out moustaches on the sides of the air intakes. Clearance between the RBS 15F fins under the front wings and the ground would have been 44 mm.
The load out could have consisted of 2 x RBS 15F under the front wings, 2 x tanks under the fuselage the countermeasures pods U22 and KB (as on Viggen) and outboard of them Sidewinders or RB 28 Falcons under the outer wings. It would have retained the one built in 30 mm gun and also be capable of carrying Mavericks and the 6 x 135 mm rocket pods.
Data for AJ 35 level 4
Length: 15.34 m
Span: 10.56 m
Height: 4.09 m
Wing area: 54 m^2
Internal fuel: 2745 kg
External fuel: 2 x 525 l
Take off weight: 11800 kg
Max take off weight: 14800 kg
Engine thrust: 5845 kp; 7880 kp with afterburner (RM 6C)
Take off run: 750 m
Landing run: 600 m (800 m without brake chute)
Radius, lo-lo-lo 303 km
Thank you!
- Joined
- 1 May 2007
- Messages
- 2,543
- Reaction score
- 1,767
Similar threads
-
Swedish Missiles and Missile Projects.- Started by Tzoli
- Replies: 24
-
-
-
-
China's attempts to obtain foreign combat types: Draken, Mirage, Harrier, P-16 .- Started by Deino
- Replies: 8