Announcement: Saab to co-develop new interceptor with (insert mfg. of choice)

[Daryl J.]

Stepping back in time beginning with Saab's first jets until the current day, what could have looked different ?

IE:  Saab + Hawker issue the Draken:   Ogival wing tips and vertical tail
......Saab + Grumman issue the Tunnen:  Tip tanks, heavy duty landing gear with a pronounced squat



etc.............. 



Daryl J.

[dy031101]

IE:  Saab + Hawker issue the Draken:   Ogival wing tips and vertical tail

Or use works done for Hawker P.1126 to produce a STOVL version of Draken with a propulsion scheme along the line of Mirage IIIV (hopefully they could cut the number of liftjets to at most four in the end).

EDIT: Mossie posted an illustration here.

[Lawman]

At the risk of getting hit for bringing up the Rolls RB.106 Thames in yet another thread, it would be a good choice for the Draken. A Hawker/Saab/Rolls Royce Draken for both the Swedish Air Force and RAF would be an excellent candidate. Add in the extra hardpoints from the Danish Draken, the higher-thrust Thames, and it would boost performance massively. The Thames offers much more dry thrust, meaning that most of a mission can be flown solely on dry thrust (using the afterburner just for the few times when it is really needed). The Draken had one of the most powerful radars in Europe until the American F-15s started making themselves known, so I suspect the Draken could have been modified to guide Sparrows, making it an excellent BVR interceptor. The Draken should be able to carry a pair of drop tanks, two Sparrows and four Sidewinders, or four Sparrows and two Sidewinders.

This deal would have given Hawker an excellent rival to the English Electric Lightning, hopefully seeing the Hawker-Draken replace the Hunters and Javelins in the fighter role, with Hunters being upgraded as well. This would have helped the RAF's fighter problems in the '60s - a modern, reasonable cost fighter, and a good ground attack fighter with modern avionics. These would then be followed up with a genuine British fighter, in the form of an enlarged P.146 design, or perhaps a joint Anglo-Swedish Viggen project, using a British engine (Medway?). Hunters could easily be replaced by the P.146, but Drakens would be easily able to survive well into the '70s. Perhaps, therefore, we would have seen a P-146 developed between the '60s and early '70s, and the P.110 between the late '70s and early '80s. P-146 could have been a pretty good naval fighter as well, and ideally the P.110 would follow the same sort of development path, giving Britain a very modern fighter force in the '60s, '70s and '80s (and the '90s of course).

[dy031101]

The Draken had one of the most powerful radars in Europe until the American F-15s started making themselves known, so I suspect the Draken could have been modified to guide Sparrows, making it an excellent BVR interceptor. The Draken should be able to carry a pair of drop tanks, two Sparrows and four Sidewinders, or four Sparrows and two Sidewinders.

Would improving Rb-27 (AIM-26B) with Skyflash seeker technology have been worthwhile, too?

[upnorth]

How about BAC and SAAB teaming up for the Viggen?

It would probably see the RR Medway into production and that would open the door to exports.

It would also negate the Phantom II in RAF service (not sure what the FAA would do for a fighter though) The Viggen could pretty much do whatever the Phantom did for the RAF.

It would be good to supplement (or possibly replace on an earlier timescale) the Lightning. Much as I love the Lightning, she was short legged and under armed for her size. The Viggen would have much more loiter time, carry more weaponry and have much more scope for upgrading.

Who knows, perhaps the viggen could even negate the need for the Tornado ADV variants and hold the line straight to the Typhoon.

[Lawman]

I think a Draken would have solved a lot of problems, and the Viggen would have been a great follow-up. Not sure about a heavily updated Rb26 though - I would just go with the AIM-7 and -9, since these are more supportable long-term. Draken in the '60s and Viggen in the '70s could make way for a joint Anglo-Swedish P.110 in the '80s, rather than the Eurofighter project - the STOL characteristics would be useful for both the UK and Sweden (and applicable for the Royal Navy as a carrierborne type).

If the RAF get Draken and then Viggen, then as UpNorth says, then they are pretty much sorted, and wouldn't strictly need Phantoms; this of course does not apply to the RN, who cannot use a naval Draken... The options are pretty limited, but it is possible that a Mach 1.6 capable Super Sea Vixen, using afteburning Thames engines could have served through most of the '60s (not ideal, but would suffice if necessary). This could then be replaced by the P.146 if it is turned into a proper fighter (i.e. enlarged, and M2.0 capable), possibly in a Phantom-esque strike-fighter form, fully capable in the air-to-air role, and excellent in the strike role. A straightforward Royal Navy buy of Clemenceau class carriers should have been enough to allow Sea Vixen and Buccaneer and then P.146 and Buccaneer airwings, as long as the P.146 has good STOL characteristics.

For the Swedes, they get development funding, and close cooperation with British aerospace industry, and exports. It would also be possible for the British-engined Viggen to be exported, which was always difficult for the American-engined Viggen (where basically the US could veto a sale simply because the Viggen was coming up against American aircraft for competitions). This could open up sales to India (they wanted Viggens, US vetoed), Japan (apparently liked the Viggen, but were put off it by the Americans), Denmark and other Nordic countries. This could open up potential for hundreds of sales - hence Sweden gets a lot out of it, as does Britain (British engineers get work, and they could be built in Britain).

[kitbasher]

What about Hawker and Saab, exploiting the reheated Avon that was tested on a Swedish Hunter, work together to produce a Mach 1-and-a-bit aircraft that would have essentially been a 'Super Hunter' to the RAF and an alternative to the Lansen in Swedish service?  The type would be a radar-equipped, multi-role aircraft.  The two-seat version would have a tandem layout and available on combat and training (operational conversion and advanced flying training) roles.
The RAF single-seater would have served as a multi-role fighter/ground attack type overseas (Germany, Cyprus, Far East).  Meanwhile the 2-seater would have at least replaced the Gnat in RAF service (and satisfied the supersonic trainer requirement that ultimately led to the Jaguar).
A navalised version may have entered RN service as a Sea Hawk/Sea Venom replacement and done away with the Scimitar requirement.
The Swedish aircraft would have done all the things the Lansen did in real life.
Exports to Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Denmark, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, with second-hand models sold worldwide.

Oh dear, I smell the need to mate a Hunter with a Lansen! 

[Zen]

I always thought the Lansen had potential as a navy attack machine. My knowledge of its supposedly high approach speeds seems rather to suggest its well within arrestor system limits.

Since it was used for FAW type operations as well, there seems some scope here for two types in RN service as the limited war machine NA/38 in its early form.
Reheat was limited for the Lansen and the British unit (and from what I know the unit used on the Drakken)  would've required major changes at the rear of the aircraft.

Viggen as System32 was at one stage planned around the same Olympus engine as used on the TSR.2. In performance terms this should've permitted parity if not superiority over the Lightning as an interceptor.
Medway is a good choice I think and again was at one stage I think on the cards for the Viggen.

Viggen for the RN has some issues, its low speed approach is still very nose high, and there seems little scope for a good wingfold.

[upnorth]

Viggen as System32 was at one stage planned around the same Olympus engine as used on the TSR.2. In performance terms this should've permitted parity if not superiority over the Lightning as an interceptor.
Medway is a good choice I think and again was at one stage I think on the cards for the Viggen.

Viggen for the RN has some issues, its low speed approach is still very nose high, and there seems little scope for a good wingfold.

Viggen was System 37 (Lansen was 32) and I agree with you that without major reworking, the Viggen definitely wasn't the sort of thing you'd want on a carrier. I'm sure its been discussed in other places in the forums that the Viggen's thrust reverser system would cause serious safety issues on a carrier deck.

How about  Saab and Commonwealth teaming up on the lansen? Go from the J32B: the Avon and the 30mm Aden guns were part of that variant already. Like the Avon Sabres, the J32B was also Sidewinder capable. I think the Australians could have saved themselves a lot of work and expense in going with the Lansen rather than doing all the mods to create the Avon Sabres.

When the RAAF was ready to upgrade, they could sell their Lansens second hand to the Malaysians and Saudis just like they did with the Avon Sabres in real life.

[Zen]

Yeah, yeah one lousy number to get wrong.
Frankly I think I was the one to point out the issues of thrust reversers in a carrier deck and some people seem to think its no problem, which I don't.
The machine would certainly need a lot of changes for navalisation, almost a different machine.

[dy031101]

Not sure about a heavily updated Rb26 though - I would just go with the AIM-7 and -9, since these are more supportable long-term.

Sweden in real-life adopted AIM-9 but built and used Rb-27 into the '90s, so I figured that upgrading Rb-27 might be easier for them.  Granted the point became moot as Swedes later introduced Skyflash for JA-37......