Couldn't understand a word of it, but loved the vid. Especially the way SAAB kept "product placing" their cars. The Cold War fighters were just plain cool.
This machine was dangerous and could perform superstall in plane sight. There's stories about this plane pulling G's that would make any other fighter look like a toy. I really miss seing them in the sky...
This is a clip from a longer documentary titled "News about Saab". It contained information of all the stuff the Saab company manufactured back then, such as jet fighters, cars, computers and other things
So, one has to think, is the Saab 35 REALLY Obsolete?! Think how easily this basic airframe could clean-up and be truly 'stealth' if no external stores were needed on strike missions! It showed decent maneuvering, had decent short take-off/landing, an could pull off a 'Cobra',possibly before the ruskies did one.. Up-grade the materials, stealth-tweak the profile/intakes/weapons carriage, and electronics, add, perhaps, the thrust reverse from the Viggen, and, well, yeah, git outa it's way! One of my favorite planes, ever. The shape speaks to it's abilities very well, and it had to have been the best plane in the air in '60, or even '70!
***** Excuse me; Ignorance?! Really, and you judge me by what you know of me? As for my line-of-thought, I looked at the basic shape, easy-by-today's standards construction, and realized that the Draken was probably better suited to being 'cleaned-up' than, perhaps the B-1A-to-B-1B, or the redesign that occurred with the F-18c/d evolving into the F-18e/f/g. Now, the two American designs are not 'true stealth', as in the likes of the F-117, B-2,or F-22, but are better at eluding radar than similar designs of the same era. All of these planes (well, maybe not the earlier F-18) are quite complex, perhaps more so than need be. The Draken is simpler, very robust, and had a long and storied career. Running clean (which meant no A/S missle, unfortunately), at low level, Danish J-35's were able to fly inside Nav-Cap in NATO war games, much to the chagrin of the Navy. AS I see it, the Potential to make a Draken very hard to track with radar is certainly there. There also the thought that a plane need not be so uber-high-tech to be viable, and the resounding lack of success of the F-35 Lightning II may be a harbinger of the issues of 'over-building' an airframe.
***** Also, sir, a 'Cobra' is a post-stall, high angle of attack move that takes an airplane up through the vertical, and back to the horizontal, without loss of control. It bleeds of airspeed quite quickly, put the plane that pulls it off in the enviable position of being immediately behind any pursuing attacker. It does drain store energy, so it's not a good 'melee' move, but is a decent surprise in a one-on-one knife fight. Few planes can pull it off without losing control, and few are rated for G-loads in can inflict (ie, Don't do this in a Hun!). So, for it's day, I'd say the Draken was in very rare company. ▶ Saab J35 Draken trainers doing the Swedish Cobra Maneuver - UA-cam
If it was easy to do, SAAB or another company would have done it. Keep in mind the Draaken is a very (VERY) light weight interceptor, with minimal avionics, no ground attack capability and short range. It has none of the attributes needed for a modern multi-role aircraft, most especially size. The old F-18ABCD is nearly double the weight, and the E/F, another 30% larger still.
Well, it was limited by range, certainly. The avionics suite was good by 60's standards, and unlike the F-100 Super-Sabre (the only plane in it's design-phase time to go supersonic) it was Double Super-Sonic by 1960. It Evolved, though, and while leaving the dedicated Ground attack to the Lansen, it did become a ship-hunter in the 70's. Acrobatically, it ran circles around any 'century series' airframe, except perhaps the F-106 or [gasp] the F-8 Crusader. As for easy-to-do, I don't think 'Stealth' was on the minds of Saab engineers in the mid-fifties? They had other issues at hand. My point is this: take the 'good stuff' from this aircraft, and build it simply in construct, robust enough for STOL, and NOT build another F-16 XL that has no true Stealth (despite the fact it carried 3/4 of what a Strike Eagle can, at less cost), but rather build a plane that can defend well in a high threat arena, yet attack, too, while leaving the country using it with enough money to buy food and medications. Modifying an old J-35 to a decent level of stealth in a re-build isn't likely to get too far. But the plane's configuration, even construct, should be considered, certainly compared with planes like a Lightning, which will be too expensive to lose in actual combat...
Nice; I like how you can see the oleos decompress when the pilot's weight transfers off the ladder. Not like the gargantuan fighters they use today, that you can walk underneath without even bending your head down, that weigh as much as old airliners did. I notice that the car in the beginning of the film is the same as the one in other Draken films I've seen. I'm guessing that is a Saab car, and this is a film made by Saab as well? Product placement, man. =)
Correct. It was "product placement". Since SAAB Auto belonged to the same group, controlled by the same family, Wallenberg, it was a natural fit, aeroplane + automobile.
SAAB and the Swe Gov tricked the Britts to sell the most powerful (and prohibited) jet engine. This made the J 35 one of the fastest jet interceptor of the day.
Yup, and as if the B-1B has a small tail, or the F-18E has internal stowage!! NOT. Keep in mind, the British Lighting is this vehicle's contemporary (as was the F-100), and as such, I wouldn't expect too much from an airframe based on 50 year-old construction. But, in seeing that A-26's saw 3 U.S. wars, and a few 'brush-fire' fights in their 38 years, one could postulate that a mid-20th century design might still be viable (I believe A-4's are still in military second-line use?). That tailfin Is an Issue, as is the spine.Those vertical surfaces would need angle, mounting, and contour mods. Internal weapons, well, you'd have to do a little surgery to the wings, along the roots, for thickest and longest bays, and replace metal-formed fuel cells with plastics that fit into un-used voids. I didn't say it'd be EASY, but perhaps cost effective. And, look again at the F-16XL, that not MY love for this design principal, is it?
This was made primarily to waste strategic bombers, not really dogfight even if it can turn. Its a flying arrow in reality with a very high altitude limit and a more or less acceleration limited by the fuel, not engine. This burns fuel as f** but it had missiles so for the time an exceptional plane.
This is pretty much a stolen design from german engineers! it looks quite basic and simple! don't get me wrong, it's amazing and futuristic! i like it!
No, that's not "bullshit". The Germans actually made a jet which was a delta-wing towards the end of the war. I think it was called Komet, but it never fought for real.
@@pekkaastrom7346 The Me163 komet was made, it was powered by a rocket engine and incredibly fast, but not delta wings. That being said it did have swept wings and it is pretty well know that saab used German documents about swept wings to design the saab 29 or "the flying barrel" as it was (unofficially) called. That being said i have not heard anything about tests of a doubble delta like the draken. Reading about the development of the saab 35 this is all I can find. "The development process of a new fighter, to replace the at the time current saab 29, began in the fall of 1949." "The first design requirements were of a day fighter that could fly just shy of mach 1.0 between 10-18km high." "In early 1952 it was decided to move forward with the work on fpl-1250." "To get information/experience about the new wing shape a small test plane was built called Saab 210. This first flew on the 21st of January 1952." Source: *Svenskt militärflyg 1911-2005,* by: Bo Widfeldt / Åke Hall, company: Air Historic Research AB in Nässjö, printed 2005. I would be very interested about knowing your sources for your information, not in a mean way, I just want to know where this information came from and want to learn more.
Couldn't understand a word of it, but loved the vid. Especially the way SAAB kept "product placing" their cars. The Cold War fighters were just plain cool.
War thunder: releases this plane
UA-cam: here's an 8 years old video of it
narrated by the swedish chef
Say 61 years old.
This machine was dangerous and could perform superstall in plane sight. There's stories about this plane pulling G's that would make any other fighter look like a toy.
I really miss seing them in the sky...
This is a clip from a longer documentary titled "News about Saab".
It contained information of all the stuff the Saab company manufactured back then, such as jet fighters, cars, computers and other things
I love the 1950’s style music, I thought I was watching a sportscar introduction video.
Nice video with some old pictures. I miss the Draken in the skies over Denmark. Also, the "sound" was fantastic
Cheers Adam
Beautiful plane!
Excelente material, raro e bem demonstrativo, nota-se que a Saab já era uma grande empresa em 1960.
War Thunder: releases the saab 35 draken to the game
UA-cam: I'm gonna do what's called a pro gamer move
Cool plane👍
Saab flygplan och bil marknadsföring på samma gång 😎 det skulle vara kul att se utomnordiska företag göra samma sak 😀
Sexiest jet ever made. Plus it had a badass name.
”The kite”. So sexy.
This is My favorite Air Force Jet 🛩 🇸🇪 and I’m an American 🇺🇸 Air Force Auxiliary 2nd Lieutenant
So, one has to think, is the Saab 35 REALLY Obsolete?! Think how easily this basic airframe could clean-up and be truly 'stealth' if no external stores were needed on strike missions! It showed decent maneuvering, had decent short take-off/landing, an could pull off a 'Cobra',possibly before the ruskies did one.. Up-grade the materials, stealth-tweak the profile/intakes/weapons carriage, and electronics, add, perhaps, the thrust reverse from the Viggen, and, well, yeah, git outa it's way!
One of my favorite planes, ever. The shape speaks to it's abilities very well, and it had to have been the best plane in the air in '60, or even '70!
***** Excuse me; Ignorance?! Really, and you judge me by what you know of me?
As for my line-of-thought, I looked at the basic shape, easy-by-today's standards construction, and realized that the Draken was probably better suited to being 'cleaned-up' than, perhaps the B-1A-to-B-1B, or the redesign that occurred with the F-18c/d evolving into the F-18e/f/g. Now, the two American designs are not 'true stealth', as in the likes of the F-117, B-2,or F-22, but are better at eluding radar than similar designs of the same era. All of these planes (well, maybe not the earlier F-18) are quite complex, perhaps more so than need be. The Draken is simpler, very robust, and had a long and storied career. Running clean (which meant no A/S missle, unfortunately), at low level, Danish J-35's were able to fly inside Nav-Cap in NATO war games, much to the chagrin of the Navy. AS I see it, the Potential to make a Draken very hard to track with radar is certainly there. There also the thought that a plane need not be so uber-high-tech to be viable, and the resounding lack of success of the F-35 Lightning II may be a harbinger of the issues of 'over-building' an airframe.
*****
Also, sir, a 'Cobra' is a post-stall, high angle of attack move that takes an airplane up through the vertical, and back to the horizontal, without loss of control. It bleeds of airspeed quite quickly, put the plane that pulls it off in the enviable position of being immediately behind any pursuing attacker. It does drain store energy, so it's not a good 'melee' move, but is a decent surprise in a one-on-one knife fight. Few planes can pull it off without losing control, and few are rated for G-loads in can inflict (ie, Don't do this in a Hun!). So, for it's day, I'd say the Draken was in very rare company.
▶ Saab J35 Draken trainers doing the Swedish Cobra Maneuver - UA-cam
I like your Ideas :-)
If it was easy to do, SAAB or another company would have done it. Keep in mind the Draaken is a very (VERY) light weight interceptor, with minimal avionics, no ground attack capability and short range. It has none of the attributes needed for a modern multi-role aircraft, most especially size. The old F-18ABCD is nearly double the weight, and the E/F, another 30% larger still.
Well, it was limited by range, certainly. The avionics suite was good by 60's standards, and unlike the F-100 Super-Sabre (the only plane in it's design-phase time to go supersonic) it was Double Super-Sonic by 1960. It Evolved, though, and while leaving the dedicated Ground attack to the Lansen, it did become a ship-hunter in the 70's. Acrobatically, it ran circles around any 'century series' airframe, except perhaps the F-106 or [gasp] the F-8 Crusader.
As for easy-to-do, I don't think 'Stealth' was on the minds of Saab engineers in the mid-fifties? They had other issues at hand. My point is this: take the 'good stuff' from this aircraft, and build it simply in construct, robust enough for STOL, and NOT build another F-16 XL that has no true Stealth (despite the fact it carried 3/4 of what a Strike Eagle can, at less cost), but rather build a plane that can defend well in a high threat arena, yet attack, too, while leaving the country using it with enough money to buy food and medications.
Modifying an old J-35 to a decent level of stealth in a re-build isn't likely to get too far.
But the plane's configuration, even construct, should be considered, certainly compared with planes like a Lightning, which will be too expensive to lose in actual combat...
Nice; I like how you can see the oleos decompress when the pilot's weight transfers off the ladder. Not like the gargantuan fighters they use today, that you can walk underneath without even bending your head down, that weigh as much as old airliners did. I notice that the car in the beginning of the film is the same as the one in other Draken films I've seen. I'm guessing that is a Saab car, and this is a film made by Saab as well? Product placement, man. =)
Correct. It was "product placement". Since SAAB Auto belonged to the same group, controlled by the same family, Wallenberg, it was a natural fit, aeroplane + automobile.
SAAB and the Swe Gov tricked the Britts to sell the most powerful (and prohibited) jet engine. This made the J 35 one of the fastest jet interceptor of the day.
Never knew Swedie Chef was a narrator for the defence industry!
Yup, and as if the B-1B has a small tail, or the F-18E has internal stowage!! NOT. Keep in mind, the British Lighting is this vehicle's contemporary (as was the F-100), and as such, I wouldn't expect too much from an airframe based on 50 year-old construction. But, in seeing that A-26's saw 3 U.S. wars, and a few 'brush-fire' fights in their 38 years, one could postulate that a mid-20th century design might still be viable (I believe A-4's are still in military second-line use?). That tailfin Is an Issue, as is the spine.Those vertical surfaces would need angle, mounting, and contour mods. Internal weapons, well, you'd have to do a little surgery to the wings, along the roots, for thickest and longest bays, and replace metal-formed fuel cells with plastics that fit into un-used voids. I didn't say it'd be EASY, but perhaps cost effective. And, look again at the F-16XL, that not MY love for this design principal, is it?
A marinha do Brasil ainda utiliza os A-4 em seu porta aviôes.
Sylvia Vrethammar får ursäkta, men J 35 an är det bästa Sverige någonsin producerat
Sylvia och Draken, två vackra kroppar....❤️
This was made primarily to waste strategic bombers, not really dogfight even if it can turn. Its a flying arrow in reality with a very high altitude limit and a more or less acceleration limited by the fuel, not engine. This burns fuel as f** but it had missiles so for the time an exceptional plane.
new macross
This is pretty much a stolen design from german engineers! it looks quite basic and simple! don't get me wrong, it's amazing and futuristic!
i like it!
Feel free to substantiate your claim. There has never existed a plane that looks like Saab 35 Draken.
Bullshit...It was an construction made of Bratt and his team period....
And the Porsche 911 is a Beatle, a car made by Hitler.
No, that's not "bullshit". The Germans actually made a jet which was a delta-wing towards the end of the war. I think it was called Komet, but it never fought for real.
@@pekkaastrom7346 The Me163 komet was made, it was powered by a rocket engine and incredibly fast, but not delta wings. That being said it did have swept wings and it is pretty well know that saab used German documents about swept wings to design the saab 29 or "the flying barrel" as it was (unofficially) called. That being said i have not heard anything about tests of a doubble delta like the draken. Reading about the development of the saab 35 this is all I can find.
"The development process of a new fighter, to replace the at the time current saab 29, began in the fall of 1949."
"The first design requirements were of a day fighter that could fly just shy of mach 1.0 between 10-18km high."
"In early 1952 it was decided to move forward with the work on fpl-1250."
"To get information/experience about the new wing shape a small test plane was built called Saab 210. This first flew on the 21st of January 1952."
Source: *Svenskt militärflyg 1911-2005,* by: Bo Widfeldt / Åke Hall, company: Air Historic Research AB in Nässjö, printed 2005.
I would be very interested about knowing your sources for your information, not in a mean way, I just want to know where this information came from and want to learn more.