Re: Swedish underground hangars, photos

[patrick savoie]

Very interestings pics. I wonder how they handled noise & air quality with
engines running. It must have been very exciting to be inside when aircraft
were launched.

Pat


"Jerry" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> On 30 Jun 2003 10:24:18 +0200, (Urban Fredriksson)
> wrote:
>
> >As some of them are no longer used, they can be
> >photographed (photos not by me).
> >
> Thanks Urban, these have always fascinated me ever since I read TC's
> Red Storm Rising (I think it was in there) with the Viggens launching
> and intercepting Soviet Aircraft violating Sweedish Airspace.
>
> A great example of engineering as well.
>
>
>
> Dont worry about the spelling errors, because I don't!
>
> Jerry

[Urban Fredriksson]

In article >,
Jerry > wrote:
>On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 07:22:44 -0400, "patrick savoie"
> wrote:

>>Very interestings pics. I wonder how they handled noise & air quality with
>>engines running. It must have been very exciting to be inside when aircraft
>>were launched.

Actually, they weren't, as they were towed to the surface.

But at least some of them were designed to let aircraft
taxi out under their own power. I don't think anyone
cared much about air quality in the 1950's, most likely
there were other safety concerns or something which proved
to be impractical.

>I wondered that too but thought they probably used ear defenders like
>on a carrier and probably had some filtration system like in a nuclear
>bunker.

For most practical purposes, they were intended as full NBC
protected bunkers. But I won't go into detail...

>Urban do you know why they are no longer used?

....because they *are* used! It's just that the F 18 and F
9 wings have been disbanded. And F 8. F 16 will be
disbanded as a _wing_ at the end of 2003, but still be
used as a military airfield, but as I understand it, not a
"war base" (although that doesn't have the same meaning
now as before).
I guess they can be documented better when all are out
of use. And they're not the only interesting things the
air force has had inside mountains. Air defence centres
are sort of obvious, but I think quite a bit of the fuel
storages were intended for the air force as well. Many of
these, not only the air force's are closed now, sealed,
for sale or sold.

This is mostly about dispersed basing:
<http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/text/bas/dispersed_basing.html>
But it explains the thinking behind the underground
hangars: They were mainly intended for interceptor
squadrons near our largest cities; The rest of the air
force was supposed to rely on dispersal and camouflage.
There's also the matter that you can't build them
everywhere there's an airbase. (We've got one naval wharf
inside a mountain (you can imagine what you need to lift a
periscope out of a submarine), but when it was planned, we
planned for four more but couldn't find a place in the
south - a hangar doesn't take quite as much but most wings
weren't planned with that in mind.

I've recently learned that at F 18 there's a lower level
which was never finished; Just empty space and gravel
floor today.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
A king and an elephant were sitting in a bathtub. The king said, "pass
the soap" and the elephant said, "No soap, radio!"

[Keith Willshaw]

"Jerry" > wrote in message
...
> Sounds very interesting in the UK lots of the Bunkers have been
> opened up, sold off etc. And you can even do a tour in one, IMO this
> is very shortsighted given the threat of global terrorism.

Bunkers designed to provide a command centre in case
of nuclear war are unlikely to be much use in dealing
with terrorist threats


> I don't
> think we have the underground bunkers for our Aircraft either.
>

The Iraqi's had lots of them, didnt help a lot did it ?

Keith

[robert arndt]

> This is mostly about dispersed basing:
> <http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/text/bas/dispersed_basing.html>
> But it explains the thinking behind the underground
> hangars: They were mainly intended for interceptor
> squadrons near our largest cities; The rest of the air
> force was supposed to rely on dispersal and camouflage.
> There's also the matter that you can't build them
> everywhere there's an airbase. (We've got one naval wharf
> inside a mountain (you can imagine what you need to lift a
> periscope out of a submarine), but when it was planned, we
> planned for four more but couldn't find a place in the
> south - a hangar doesn't take quite as much but most wings
> weren't planned with that in mind.
>
> I've recently learned that at F 18 there's a lower level
> which was never finished; Just empty space and gravel
> floor today.


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?
Would they have had to build different nuclear bunkers and change
their security around the dispersal area? Also, the SAAB A-36 would
have been a much larger aircraft than your standard Swedish fighter of
the late '50s... any comment?

Rob

[Urban Fredriksson]

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]

In article >,
Keith Willshaw > wrote:

>"Jerry" > wrote in message
...
>> Sounds very interesting in the UK lots of the Bunkers have been
>> opened up, sold off etc. And you can even do a tour in one, IMO this
>> is very shortsighted given the threat of global terrorism.

>Bunkers designed to provide a command centre in case
>of nuclear war are unlikely to be much use in dealing
>with terrorist threats

No, but they're safe _from_ them. Before 2001 the plan was
that one major Swedish command and control centre would move
to an ordinary office building, with a safer backup place
somewhere.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
To get rid of an enemy, make him a friend.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Jerry" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:31:35 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
> >Bunkers designed to provide a command centre in case
> >of nuclear war are unlikely to be much use in dealing
> >with terrorist threats
> >
> >> I don't
> >> think we have the underground bunkers for our Aircraft either.
> >
> >The Iraqi's had lots of them, didnt help a lot did it ?
> >
> >Keith
> >
>
>
> I was referring to an attack using dirty bomb or the use of chemical
> or biological weapons, surely it is necessary for EPOs, Central
> Government to go to in the event of an attack of this nature.
>

No sir, a room with a filtered air supply is all that would seem
to be required in such a case, or even simpler move out of the
affected area.

> When I said about underground bunkers I was referring to the ones
> chiseled out of mountains in Sweden, not the typical Tab Vee type
> shelters or reinforced concrete underground bunkers.
>

There werent very many mountains in southern England capable of being
chiselled into underground bunkers last time I checked and I dont
think it likely that MOD will move to Whernside any time soon

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Urban Fredriksson" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
> >"Jerry" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Sounds very interesting in the UK lots of the Bunkers have been
> >> opened up, sold off etc. And you can even do a tour in one, IMO this
> >> is very shortsighted given the threat of global terrorism.
>
> >Bunkers designed to provide a command centre in case
> >of nuclear war are unlikely to be much use in dealing
> >with terrorist threats
>
> No, but they're safe _from_ them.

And there are still secure MOD facilities, the bunkers opened to
the public were mostly local government command centres and
observer corps facilities built for nuclear war.


> Before 2001 the plan was
> that one major Swedish command and control centre would move
> to an ordinary office building, with a safer backup place
> somewhere.

Last time I checked the MOD still had its bunker at Northwood.
and another in London

Keith

[robert arndt]

(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

[Goran Larsson]

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/

[M]

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.

[robert arndt]

(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

[Goran Larsson]

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/

[robert arndt]

(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

[Urban Fredriksson]

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.

[Greg Hennessy]

On 4 Jul 2003 09:11:57 +0200, (Urban Fredriksson) wrote:

>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?

I did hear of one or two in the Niagara Falls area ;-)


greg


--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
She'll chew you up, ain't no lie

[Goran Larsson]

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/

[robert arndt]

(Urban Fredriksson) wrote in message >...
> 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?

I think everyone will make an exception here noting that the Tunnan
was actually one of the most accurate aircraft descriptions ever!
>
> 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.

This I don't understand... unless the spelling in Swedish varies. In
old Norse mythology it is always Surte. Translation: "flame God" or
"flame Demon".
>
> >is appropriate for a Swedish nuke but I wonder what name the
> >A36 would have recieved itself.
>
> "Flygplan typ 36".

Besides the obvious. A few enthusiasts sent in some recommendations
with the names Valkyrie and Berserker showing up more than once.
Valkyrie (Choosers of the Slain) sounds great but was taken by the
latter XB-70 bomber. Berserker seems out of place. Berserkers, aka
frenzied warriors, made their presence known to the enemy rather
loudly BEFORE their attack. The A36 approach would have been the
opposite.

Rob

[Urban Fredriksson]

In article >,
robert arndt > wrote:

>> "Flygplan typ 36".

>Besides the obvious.

I'm totally serious. The air force never planned on giving
the J 35 a name. And there was a possibility the 37 could
have been called "Falken" or something, so there's no
reason to assume any kind of theme to the name(s) either, then.
SK 60 still has no name.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
A king and an elephant were sitting in a bathtub. The king said, "pass
the soap" and the elephant said, "No soap, radio!"

[Jukka Raustia]

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.

[robert arndt]

Just to let you know Urban- I appreciated all the information you
supplied. However, for historical accuracy and general curiosity I
contacted Saab directly and am waiting for them to send me some info
on the A36, including any possible configuration drawings of the Surte
bomb. I'm sure Saab will fill me in on exactly what color scheme/camo
of the aircraft would have been, the units operating it, the length
and width of the bomb bay, and the size of the nuke carried. I was
going to try Bofors regarding the bomb but I'm not sure they did any
design studies at all. Bofors would have manufactured key components
of the bomb once the design was set but all I have is speculation
right now.
I thought that I would mention one man in Sweden who e-mailed me to
tell me how the government is still lying to the people and has plans
for rapid assembly of a specific type of nuclear weapon based on a FSU
design. Have you heard anything about that lately? Sweden has bought
HPM weapons from Russia and tested them (out of concern over the
threat to the Gripen) but I've never heard of Sweden offering to buy a
nuclear design from them.
Anyway, thanks for the info... now I have to wait to hear from Saab.
When I do I'll post any interesting information.

Rob