Swedish underground hangars, photos

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

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!"

"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

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

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.

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.

"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

"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

(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/