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Consider it superceded by Viggen rather than cancelled.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.

(Urban Fredriksson) wrote in message ...
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,

I would like to have a custom-made model done on the A-36 but need
some information if you don't mind.
For the time period- late '50s/early 60's- what paint
scheme/camouflage would have been applied to the A-36?
If accepted for service would the A-designation been changed to a
B-designation?
What unit would have likely flown the aircraft and are there any
drawings of the proposed Surte 800 kg nuclear free fall bomb?
I need the wing number, aircraft tail number (assuming 01 is
sufficient), paint scheme/camo (unless black is acceptable, since the
aircraft was never built), and some form of nuclear free fall bomb
design to go along with the aircraft. I was going to just copy an
early British design, assuming that all early free fall nukes would be
configured pretty much the same.
BTW, what does "Surte" mean? A guy from Sweden sent me an e-mail with
that name for the Swedish bomb...
Any help is useful. Motion Models is four months backlogged so I need
the info ASAP. They're charging $500 for splinter camo/ $400 for gray
w/stand in national markings.

Rob

In article ,
robert arndt wrote:

BTW, what does "Surte" mean? A guy from Sweden sent me an e-mail with
that name for the Swedish bomb...

Surte is a small place, about 14 km north of Gothenburg, with about 5500
inhabitants.

--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/

lid (Goran Larsson) wrote in message ...
In article ,
robert arndt wrote:

BTW, what does "Surte" mean? A guy from Sweden sent me an e-mail with
that name for the Swedish bomb...

Surte is a small place, about 14 km north of Gothenburg, with about 5500
inhabitants.


I've been told by a few people it actually is a fire demon/god from
Norse mythology...

Rob

In article ,
robert arndt wrote:

I've been told by a few people it actually is a fire demon/god from
Norse mythology...

Yes. Surte (Saron) is the ruler of Muspelheim (Mordor), but it is much
more fun to name an A-bomb after a small place that used to be full of
flaming hot furnaces used in glass production. :-/

--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/

lid (Goran Larsson) wrote in message ...
In article ,
robert arndt wrote:

I've been told by a few people it actually is a fire demon/god from
Norse mythology...

Yes. Surte (Saron) is the ruler of Muspelheim (Mordor), but it is much
more fun to name an A-bomb after a small place that used to be full of
flaming hot furnaces used in glass production. :-/

Thanks for the info. I want to have a custom made Surte bomb along
with the A36 model but can't find any information on the Swedish
design (assuming they had at least an initial concept of the 600-800
kg weapon). Supposedly, Bofors would have constructed it (or at least
made vital components of it).
Any suggestions where to look to find the design? If not, I will just
tell the model maker to base it on an early British nuclear free fall
bomb.
BTW, is the furnace story where they actually came up with the name?
Swedish fighters tend to all have mythological names: Drakon (Dragon),
Viggen (Thunderbolt), and Gripen (Griffin). I suppose Surte (Fire
Demon) is appropriate for a Swedish nuke but I wonder what name the
A36 would have recieved itself. Any ideas??? If I hear a good
suggestion I might name it myself on the display stand.

Rob

In article ,
robert arndt wrote:

Swedish fighters tend to all have mythological names: Drakon (Dragon),
Viggen (Thunderbolt), and Gripen (Griffin).

OK, lances occur in mythology, but has there ever been a
hero who used a flying barrel?

Also note that drake = kite (take a look at the planform
and keep in mind this wasn't an official name in the time
frame you're thinking of).

I suppose Surte (Fire
Demon)

I think you have to make up your mind if it's Surt or
Surte.

is appropriate for a Swedish nuke but I wonder what name the
A36 would have recieved itself.

"Flygplan typ 36".
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
Good/bad and right/wrong are orthogonal.

In article ,
robert arndt wrote:

BTW, is the furnace story where they actually came up with the name?

I have no idea. I didn't even know the bomb had been given a name and
the connection with the furnaces in Surte was just my first thought.

--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/

Urban Fredriksson
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.

On _Swedish_ territory? A reason why Finland wasn't entirely
happy g with the Swedish nuclear weapon plans was that at
it was seen that the weapons would have been targeted for
Finnish territory. Perhaps somewhat like the conserns in
West Germany about the French tac nukes located in France
which didn't have the range to overfly West Germany.

I have difficulty in understanding what the Swedish nuclear
doctrine would have looked liked. Surely the Soviets would
have responded going nuclear too? Sweden with a limited
nuber of tac nukes wouldn't have had that much of a
deterrance (in cold war terms) against an escalation to
a strategic exchange?

Moreover 50 tac nukes needed to stop a mere 8 or 9 Soviet
divisions? Huh? Heck, the Finnish army would have had them
for breakfst, using conventional weapons, just like it did a
few decades earlier g. Uhm, well...

Btw, about the A 36 thread, 'A' stands for attack, and
it's obviously an attack plane rather than a bomber.

M *@*.* wrote:

Moreover 50 tac nukes needed to stop a mere 8 or 9 Soviet
divisions? Huh? Heck, the Finnish army would have had them
for breakfst, using conventional weapons, just like it did a
few decades earlier g. Uhm, well...

From late 40's to the late 60's it would have been other way
around. Army had not had practically any new equipment
since the end of the war, and for the Air Force and Navy was
about as bad.

For behalf of the Swedes, tactical nukes were the
buzzword of the 50's and early 60's, much like "information warfare"
or "transformation of warfare " are today. It was expected
that they would be used from day one onwards. Every country,
even Finland, hurrily modified their fighting doctrines and
organizations in order to meet this new threat. Those small
countries which had resources, like Sweden and Switzerland,
were trying to develop their own weapons.

This reorganization of armed forces was probably taken into
extreme by Americans in the early 60's, and later by the
French in late 60's. Aviation content of this post is that
most of the strike aircraft of period were principally meant
for nuclear weapons delivery.

Motto:
"There is no such thing as mystical radiation sickness"
(quoted from memory) "Atomic Weapons in Land Combat" (1952)


terveisin,
jukka raustia


--
"Päinvastoin, olisi nähtävä, että Suomen turvallisuus _kaikissa tilanteissa_
nojautuu olennaisesti siihen, että tarpeen vaatiessa Suomi voi tukeutua
Neuvostoliiton apuun koskemattomuutensa säilyttämiseksi."
-s. 57, Kaksiteräinen miekka - 70-luvun puolustuspolitiikkaa"
Jaakko Blomberg, Pentti Joenniemi, Helsinki 1971.