Talk:Saab 35 Draken

Kite and dragon

The article lead is written using the common English expression of things. In this, "Draken" is generally translated as "Dragon", with "Kite" less often used. Therefore, "Dragon" should be mentioned first. In the section on Naming, it appears to be derived from "Kite" and the double-meaning was then adopted, so the literal translation "The Kite" should be mentioned first. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Dragon is the Swedish word for both kite and the mythical creature (compare with the color orange and the fruit orange) and in this context the name refers to the former first and the latter secondly (dragon is technically a bonus meaning). The aircraft was named after its appearance to a kite and thus kite takes precedence over dragon in either case, no matter which is the most common meaning when translating to English outside the topic in question. In Sweden, the Saab 35 rarely see any association with the mythical creature in general (i can only recall one ever being painted with a dragon). Like its predecessors and successor, the Saab 35 was named figuratively: Saab 29 looked like a barrel, the Saab 32 prototype had a nose antenna resembling a lance, Saab 35 looked like a kite, Saab 37 had canards (french for duck) and was thus named after the tufted duck (with the bonus meaning of thunderbolt).--Blockhaj (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

English readers are more familiar with the translation as "Dragon". This is what the lead should pick up on. Perhaps you have difficulty appreciating this point because you are not a native English speaker? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

What English readers are familiar with is utterly irrelevant: The name is derived from the scaled down test platform that got its name from the kite-like appearance. Since authorative sources takes precedence over popular ones, and the Swedish ones originating from SAAB, FMV and Flygvapnet are quite clear on the subject, those have precedence. Thus the primary translation is The Kite (note the definite form having a specific meaning in aircraft naming) with the secondary translation being The Dragon.

BP OMowe (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Q-Feel, not correct.

The article presently states: "As there is no natural feedback placed upon the stick, artificial forces were generated by a q-feel system".

This is not correct, or misleading, at least. Q-feel (ie. control forces being a function of dynamic pressure) in Draken is for rudder only. Artificial feel in pitch/roll are just cam-and-roller devices, (trimmable in pitch). At least in the F/J verisions, for which i have seen manuals, but i suspect the other verisions are essentially the same. Viggen has a similar setup with q-feel being yaw only and pitch/roll feel being cam-and-rollers. (to get really into this stuff, Viggen instead has Q/Mach variable ratios in pitch and roll, whereas Draken has a simpler but quite clever variable ratio as function of stick position, being less sensitive around the center position. Also, the Draken control layout obviates the need for a pitch/roll mixer, the inputs are already "mixed" at the stick base!). 90.224.28.197 (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

and is "Q-feel" really the correct term to use here? Is that the technical term for a system that functions like that? It sounds like a semi-propietary term invented by a specific company or nation for a new technology that they developed for a specific aircraft and which is being used here as a broad generic term for a similar system. Do the Swedish call it the "Q-feel" system? Idumea47b (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Radar

"The cockpit of the Draken featured mostly Swedish-sourced instrumentation. Successive models introduced various improvements to the cockpit fittings, such as the revised canopy and new avionics. For export customers, the Draken was outfitted with a Ferranti-built Airpass II fire-control radar, which was effective for acquiring various air-to-air or air-to-surface targets, along with a ground-mapping mode working in conjunction with the aircraft's navigation systems"

Why is this here specifically when you have to go significant down the article to read about how the actual production aircraft was fitted with the Cyrano radar from the Mirage III (and I wonder if they had the same issues with excessive heat and poor performance as they had in the Mirage, from trying to stuff so much capability into such a small package with the existing technology) and then a Swedish designed system specific to the Model 35. When I read that I had to go back and re-read the article again because I swore it said it used the Airpass radar. But no, that's just where it talks about the handful of export aircraft specifically, which is not mentioned again when the variants are discussed later. It would be nice if all the discussion about radar was in one place or kept to the parts talking about those specific variants. And is there a reason the Swedish system was not offered or not wanted by the export customers? Did they consider it a classified system, or did the customers not like it, or was it not compatible without the whole Swedish ADF system to work with, or was it just too expensive? For that matter, why not revert to the Cyrano?

For what it's worth the cutaway drawing in my book here says the fire control system is a "Saab S-7 collision course fire control system" which is significantly more than just a "radar gunsight", which is usually just a gyro gunsight with a small radar antenna that takes the range data. An FCS takes the range from the existing radar and numerous other factors from various sensors and integrates it into visual cues that are displayed for the pilot. And I believe at one point it says the fire control system is designed for air-to-air rockets, which the J35 didn't use, but wasn't the system designed for this aircraft specifically? And what is the point if it's not compatible with the weapons it does use? Cannon should operate very similarly but small factors can mean the difference between a hit or miss with an aerial gunnery pass at high speed.

Also wonder about the OAL as given by the table at the bottom. The long variant is less than half a foot longer than the short variant? That doesn't seem right, that should be barely visible in photos, it looks more like a couple feet longer at a glance. Is that including the nose probe and the longer version got a short probe so the OAL is not that much larger? Or am I just bad at judging sizes? Idumea47b (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Draken as the first "true" supersonic aircraft deployed in Western Europe

This statement, which appears to have been the subject of an extended fight, is simply fallacious. Whilst this seems sufficiently obvious that I feel a certain dejection in contributing to the argument, its persistence and the incorrect impression it gives compel me to do so.

The F-100, F-101 and F-102 had been deployed to Western Europe by USAFE by the late-50s. The F-100 also served in the French AdA, alongside the indigenous Super Mystere. All of these types were most definitely capable of "true" supersonic performance (i.e. they possessed the ability to exceed the speed of sound in level flight). To justify the claim that the Draken was the first "true" supersonic type to enter service in Western Europe is to apply an arbitrary definition which does not generally appear in literature. Invariably, the F-100 is described as supersonic. By way of example, A USAF Flight Manual, dated 1960, for the F-100C describes it as a "...single place, supersonic fighter-bomber...." Note that the definition of "supersonic" with reference to the F-100 is not qualified. Similarly, Quest for Performance, a NASA publication, describes the F-100 as "...the world's first fighter capable of sustained supersonic speeds in level flight...." This book gives a maximum speed of M 1.39 at 35 000'/11 000m for the F-100D. N.B. This speed is considerably beyond the transonic region. Whether or not its mission profiles would generally have required this capability to be exploited is immaterial. Turning briefly to the Super Mystere, my knowledge is limited. However, whilst certainly less capable than subsequent aircraft, there can be no dispute that it was supersonic. For the F-101, no justification need be offered. It was a fast aircraft, even under an arbitrary and rather singular definition of "true/fully" supersonic capability.

In short, the Draken was faster than all of the types mentioned above, but neither of the assertions that "It was [1] the first Western European-built combat aircraft with true supersonic capability to enter service and [2] the first fully supersonic aircraft to be deployed in Western Europe." are well supported. The first relies upon a specific interpretation of "true supersonic capability" in support of which no evidence has been offered. The second is fanciful, as explained above.

One final note - the Draken may have officially entered service in early-1960, but these early machines were delivered without radar or gunsights. The lack of a radar, in particular, would have been an enormous handicap for the aircraft in its role as an interceptor. Being thus unable to find targets or aim their sole armament (The book, Fienden i öster by Lennart Andersson, indicates that the J 35A was not initially equipped for carriage of the RB 24 which was then the only available missile), it is hard to accept that the J 35A was capable of combat operations until these deficiencies were remedied in 1961, by which point the Mirage III and F-104G were entering service. I understand that this is a somewhat semantic argument, hinging on the interpretation of the words "entered service," but it does illustrate the futility of making absolute claims such as those quoted above. Walrusww (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

No true supersonic fallacy at play. Vesole878 (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

None of the above flew at supersonic speeds during cruise, and especially in European use these aircraft were used in subsonic doctrine. I believe this is what the author meant when stating that. When it came to deliveries, its a bit unclear how many came fitted with radars and gunsights. As far as i can see, the A-series came with a radar and gunsight from the start. As for the AIM-9B Sidewinder, it was not a proper anti-bomber missile, and even in dogfights it was limited. The aircrafts were delivered with air-to-air rockets for use against bombers in all aspects, and guns for dogfights, etc. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 17:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

You have not responded to my critique in restoring the assertion that the Draken was the first "true" supersonic aircraft deployed to Western Europe. My initial post is sourced and I would be happy to provide more detail if required.

To your first point, with a very few exceptions, for fighters in service before the mid-2000s supersonic performance was limited in service to dashes of a few minutes at most. Speeds outside of tactical situations were almost invariably subsonic. Turbojets of the 1950s and '60s were inefficient and compared with modern units provided relatively little thrust. In a scenario in which a Draken is scrambled to intercept an unidentified aircraft, it will climb and accelerate as quickly as possible. It may spend a considerable proportion of this flight supersonic, but the flight itself will be very short and will not include a "cruise" phase as such. The entire flight sees changes of speed and altitude as the fighter manoeuvres to cut-off the interloper and achieve a favourable relative position from which to approach to identify or attack. Andersson (referred to in my first post) notes that the short range of the Draken imposed significant constraints upon the locations at which it could be based (p. 94).

The source (Men of Power: The Lives of Rolls-Royce Chief Test Pilots Harvey and Jim Heyworth by Robert Jackson) for the statement that the Draken was the first truly supersonic aircraft to be deployed in Western Europe cannot be considered definitive. It is a work of biography rather than operational or engineering history and is not referenced. It does not appear to be intended to deal in any substantial way with Swedish aviation, its subjects being British test pilots. In its very brief coverage of the J 35 (a single paragraph), it makes at least one small error of detail (the RM6C is described as the engine which powered the Draken, neglecting that early production series were powered by the RM6B). The statement in question is dealt with in a single sentence and the author does not return to the theme. In contrast to this, I have offered a primary source (F-100 flight manual) and a well-referenced secondary source, published by NASA on the subject of comparative aircraft performance, in support of my view that designating the Draken as the first "fully" supersonic aircraft deployed in Western Europe is to apply an arbitrary definition of supersonic performance which is not in common use. Further sources can be provided if this, frankly uncontroversial, perspective requires additional justification. Parenthetically, Quest for Performance notes of the F-102 that it was able to achieve supersonic speeds only under certain conditions. Of the F-100, no such observation is made. In a similar vein to this treatment of the F-102, it could be possibly be argued that the Super Mystere did not possess a reliable supersonic capability, but I do not have access to source material which would enable me to offer a judgement. This would, on the basis of an early-1960 service entry date, leave the Draken as the first Western European-built fighter with assured supersonic performance to enter service. It would still not be the first supersonic fighter to be deployed to Western Europe, which would remain the F-100, followed by the F-101. However, as I will outline below, Andersson's well-referenced and extensive work gives 1961 as the year in which the first Drakens actually became operational.

Concerning your belief that the F-100, F-101 and Super Mystere were not truly supersonic because the doctrines of the air arms under which they operated did not allow their pilots to exploit this area of their respective envelopes, it is necessary to bear in mind that doctrine is not equivalent to physical capability. That is, even if no F-100, F-101 or Super Mystere in Western Europe ever left the ground unencumbered by draggy stores and all were perpetually restricted to low altitude strike missions, it would not negate the fact that each of these types was capable of supersonic performance and that all were deployed in Western Europe before the Draken. This is to say that, even if a Super Sabre usually flew with two fuel tanks and one or two bombs, had it risen in clean configuration, it would have regained its supersonic capability. On this matter I will not comment further, beyond noting that your source for the F-100 being employed exclusively as a fighter-bomber by the AdA is a small collection of photos. It is entirely unclear how this source supports the note in which it is cited; most of the pictured aircraft either bearing no external stores at all, or jettisonable fuel tanks alone. In any case, such a source would hardly be decisive.

Please provide your source for the statement that the number of J 35As delivered without radar or gunsight is unclear and "As far as i can see, the A-series came with a radar and gunsight from the start." Andersson's description does not equivocate: "De fyrtio först byggda levererades dessutom som ”tommaskal” och saknade både sikte och radar...." Lacking a sight, employment of guns in a dogfight would have been an extremely difficult proposition. This analysis is supported by Andersson (p. 89). He continues on p. 96-97 to tell us that the first Draken unit (F 13) became operational in 1961.

Concerning your assertion that unguided rockets were available from the outset as an anti-bomber weapon, I am not certain that the Draken was equipped to carry these; they are wholly inferior to its intended primary armament of AIM-9/AIM-4 and configuration to employ them would have added complexity, and therefore weight, to the WCS. Either way, these were difficult weapons to aim, even for aircraft equipped with weapons control systems designed specifically for that purpose. It is probably unrealistic to imagine an average (or even very good) pilot, working from the inherently imprecise relayed reports of ground radar stations and restricted to searching for a bomber by eye for want of an on-board radar, having sufficient time to aim and launch rockets at all, let alone accurately judge the range at which to launch them. At night or in adverse weather, the situation would obviously be wholly untenable. The closure rates involved in interception of high-subsonic bombers such as the Tu-16 are very high, even in a stern attack. The window in which to launch unguided air-air rockets is very small. Because of this, among other things, a computer of some description was typically used to command the pilot to trigger their release, or would do so entirely automatically (e.g. the systems fitted to the F-94, F-89, F-86D/L & F-102). The AIM-9B was a considerably more practical weapon, in spite of its limitations. In testing against non-manoeuvring targets (a situation analogous to an attack against a bomber) it proved very reliable. Similarly, aiming wing-mounted guns, firing relatively low velocity shells, against a manoeuvring target without a sight would be challenging to say the least, even for a veteran combat-experienced pilot. Again see Andersson p. 91. Walrusww (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

There is a lot to unpack here, but firstly i will tackle the armament. As far as i can see, most if not all 35A:s came delivered with radar and radar sight. This was used in conjunction with the AA-rockets. Firing was automatic by way to radar lock and target computer. The system could be used in both frontal and rear attacks. U can briefly see the function in this promotional video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhCSSlfNJk8&t=542s The 35A was "all-weather capable", meaning it could be used both at night and during the day in most weathers. The sight unit has the day sight to the left and the night sight to the right. The night sight even features a lead indicator for locked targets, which i assume is for the guns. The AIM-4 didnt enter service until the F-model much later. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 05:35, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

As for deliveries, not that i have done a deep dive, but beyond Fienden i öster, i cant find anything on the first 40 being delivered without radar system or when they would have been retrofitted. According to AEF, only the first 32 lacked radar: https://www.aef.se/Flygvapnet/Notiser/J35A_Notis_2.htm In Kontaktgruppen:s journal on the 35A (Kontakt, nr 93 1989-09), they list 27 as being converted to the 35C trainer. Airframe s/n 35024 (24th airframe) was delivered 1960-10-17 and is the first airframe not converted to a trainer and it served until the type was scrapped. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 06:16, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Since we lack detailed information i do concur that the specific statements are a bit too loose and i would propose we write "one of the first", since that makes it both transparent and clear that this is to be taken with a grain of salt. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 06:19, 21 September 2025 (UTC)