If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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!" |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Photos of damage to J3 Cub propeller after new engine mount installation | [email protected] | Home Built | 0 | August 9th 04 09:32 PM |
Photos of damage to J3 Cub propeller after new engine mount installation | [email protected] | Home Built | 0 | August 9th 04 09:31 PM |
Rec.Aviation "Rogue's Gallery" of aircraft photos update | Jay Honeck | Home Built | 8 | May 4th 04 05:01 AM |
MT. DIABLO HIGH SCHOOL CONCORD, CA PHOTOS | MT. DIABLO HIGH SCHOOL PHOTOS | Home Built | 1 | October 13th 03 03:35 AM |