Why European lost Viggen?

Back to 1967, when several nation of NATO proposed to next generation combat aircraft for replacement of F-104 and G.91Y. The SAAB Viggen does on the deck to be alternative. I checked the specification of Viggen and other plans to both, then the question raised, why they didn't choose Viggen, since to be intercaptor, the Tornado seem to be not better than Viggen, whereas most of nations in that Group need a multi-function fighter rather than a bomber as Tornado factually.

emile, you are labouring under a couple of misconceptions with your initial question.

Firstly the SAAB Viggen was never an option for any NATO requirement, Sweden is not part of NATO and never has been. Its defence arrangements have always been fiercely independent. The Viggen, as 'System 37' was developed purely for home grown use, not on offer to anyone else.

Also, in 1967, the Viggen was solely a ground attack aircraft as this was the most urgent part of the requirement, in order to replace the SAAB Lansen. The A2A model followed on a decade later.

Secondly, the countries that bought the Tornado to replace the Starfighter (Germany and Italy) did so because they were using F-104's in the ground attack role to which it was not suited, this was the reason they needed the bomber variant of Tornado. The only country that had a requirement for an Interceptor version was the UK and the Tornado ADV was a far better interceptor for our needs than the Viggen thanks to its 120 mile range Foxhunter radar which was far more sophisticated than the much shorter range Viggen unit (after the bugs had been ironed out) and the fact that it carried double the armament. Also, remember the RAF's insistance on having twin engined fighters that I told you about before.





[edit on 14-5-2007 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
emile, you are labouring under a couple of misconceptions with your initial question.

Firstly the SAAB Viggen was never an option for any NATO requirement, Sweden is not part of NATO and never has been. Its defence arrangements have always been fiercely independent. The Viggen, as 'System 37' was developed purely for home grown use, not on offer to anyone else.

I think that is the key


However I find it very strange that The Swedes never got on the NATO bandwagon?
Weren't they worried about the commies?

Waynos:

Do you have any evidence or parameter to prove that radar on Tornado is far better than what on Viggen?

Daedalus, Sweden has been neutral for many decades, they were neutral in WW2 (and earlier) and they have stayed that way ever since. Maybe the Swedes and Finns simply had more sense than to 'fear the Commies'?

Emile, the Foxhunter is not 'far better', the Viggen radar was very good indeed and more resistant to ground clutter than many other fighter radars of the day. The reason the Foxhunter was 'better' for Britain was as I spelled out in the other thread. The range of the Swedish radar was about 60 miles, half that of the Foxhunter. Also the multi-target track-while-scan feature of the Foxhunter (tracking 20 targets while prioritising the 6 most dangerous and scanning for more at the same time) required a second crewman in those days. this was not an option on the Viggen.

This was purely because the British requirement was for long range patrols over the North Sea looking for incoming bomber formations. A requirement that no-one else in Europe shared and is not to say that the Viggen was in any way inferior, it was just not designed for our needs, naturally.

Look also at the weapons - 2 x AIM-9 plus 2 x Skyfash on the Viggen plus a pod mounted gun compared with four of each and a built in gun on the Tornado. To get the same defensive coverage with Viggens the RAF would have had to buy about twice as many and open up more bases - clearly something that was never going to happen. If the two planes came up close in a fight, anything could happen, but that is not the point.

You might as well ask why the USN needed the F-14 instead of buying F-16's for the job -they were totally different kinds of fighter for different missions.

As an illustration of how different they were, the 1980 Jane's quotes the tactical radius of the Viggen at a straight 520 miles, to get there and back. For the Tornado this figure is roughly the same, but includes a two hour loiter time on station that does not feature in the Viggen stats. This was the mission that the Tornado ADV was produced for.

[edit on 15-5-2007 by waynos]

Waynos:

We should not be so wise after event that has been concluded. Think, the period of 1967, most of JWG nations want a cheaper, lighter, simple fighter, although Viggen was already heavier a little bit for them, but still being acceptable more than subsequent Tornado.

BTW, Does Panavia sounds like reliability in English or Germany or Italian? Who knows I hope to know urgently! HELP!

Think, the period of 1967, most of JWG nations want a cheaper, lighter, simple fighter,

I don't know what you mean by JWG, but I will guess at meaning western European copuntries (?) When they decided they wanted a (comparatively) light simple and cheap fighter they all went and bought the F-16A.

Viggen was already heavier a little bit for them, but still being acceptable more than subsequent Tornado.

But how was the Viggen more acceptable, in what sense? As I have said. the Tornado was not meant to be a light fighter, it was an interdictor/strike aircraft and a long range interceptor.The specification was written by Britain, Germany and Italy and the Tornado was then designed to fill it. Your definition of 'acceptable' baffles me?

When the Viggen was available as a fighter (JA 37) the F-16 was available, and better for the job. (ie smaller lighter and cheaper, as well as more modern). note the F-16 was NOT bought by Britain, Germany or Italy as they had no requirement for it (Italy currenly leases a small number until the Typhoon is fully ready for them).

Tornado was essentially designed for a rock steady ride at extremely low level and at speeds in excess of mach 1 on interdictor strikes into enemy territory, the Viggen was not, it was designed as a dispersed area STOL close support aircraft to defend against an invading army, this was not what was required by the other countries so Tornado had to be invented. What part of this are you struggling with?

Does Panavia sounds like reliability in English or Germany or Italian?

No. Panavia is basically an abbreviation for 'Pan-European Aviation', a bit like 'Eurofighter'. The Typhoon was originally going to be handled by Panavia, Eurofighter is essentially an extension of the original consortium.

My recollection is that Sweeden itself would not sell it's aircraft to either the Warsaw pact or Nato countries. Sweeden and the Sweedish people as I recall demanded this limitation on their own arms sales.

Thus Sweeden also determined that it could not rely on weaponry from either the west or east. It had to build it's own. Of course Sweeden was wary of the Russians. Let's not forget they actually lost a DC-3 over the Baltic to Soviet fighters.

That need for independence was the crucible in which the Viggen was forged.

Really? Why they sold Draken to Danmark and Austria?