Swedish underground hangars, photos

In article ,
robert arndt wrote:

Since you know so much about this subject could you please tell me
where Sweden would have based the SAAB A-36 nuclear bomber and its
weapon stores had that aircraft actually been built?

The A 36 wasn't just a dedicated nuclear bomber. What it
had, which wasn't really necessary (but it *might* have
been to protect the bomb), was an internal bay. It was
also to use rockets and probably ordinary anti ship
missiles.
Consider it superceded by Viggen rather than cancelled.
Viggen could do most of what A 36 could, with the
exception of low altitude dash speed due to engine choice,
as well as being more multi role (but it wasn't a given an
interceptor/fighter version was to be built).

Would they have had to build different nuclear bunkers and change
their security around the dispersal area?

Planning was that it would take 100 bombs to stop a Soviet
attack. Aircraft wouldn't have been the only delivery
system. You're right in that vulnerability of the weapons
themselves was identified as a problem. My impression is
that it was seen as an economic, rather than strategic or
tactical, problem only. A reasonable guess is that not
designating special places and thus not identify them
would have been a good idea.

But as it turned out, Kennedy put us under USA's nuclear
umbrella (which was in force until at least 1980 and
was naturally very secret and also a "tripwire" agreement)
so we could stop planning for nuclear weapons, but some
design work continued until 1973.

Also, the SAAB A-36 would
have been a much larger aircraft than your standard Swedish fighter of
the late '50s... any comment?

It's almost the same size and weight as Viggen, which is
to say the same span as Draken and only 1.5-2.0 m longer.
Viggen got a folding fin, same answer would have done it
for A 36 as well. It was later alternatives like Buccaneer
and specifically Phantom II which would have required
larger shelters/hangars.

I'll include an old article by me:
***********
SW_NUCL.TXT 26 Mar 1992

After 30 years, the lid of secrecy was lifted on a report by a committee
who was to investigate the possibility of Swedish nuclear weapons. I
haven't read the report itself, this is from reports in the media.

The bombs would be purely tactical, with a yield of about 10 kT each. The
delivery systems would have been free fall bombs, air launched missiles
and artillery shells.

Suitable targets included embarkation ports, massed troop concentrations,
depots and bridges. To stop and break up an expected 8 or 9 Soviet
divisions marching through Finland, 50 bombs were calculated to be
necessary.

Depending on where on Swedish territory the weapons were to be used,
between 900 and 35 000 civilian casualities were estimated for each
explosion.

About 100 devices were judged to be sufficient. The report stresses that
extreme precautions had to be taken, to ensure that they actually could
be used, when so required.


In the end, military (and political) reasons dictated a 1966 decision
that we had better not get them at all.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
To get rid of an enemy, make him a friend.