J 35 Draken | The Swedish Dragon the interceptor with double delta wing 

Imagine this plane with a modern engine, built in modern materials, add modern systems and an internal weapons bay…

Wow, you are figuratively fighter plane Royalty

@@bhaskarmukherjee8170 No! But the people I wrote about was. I just want keep their story alive still.

@@rudolfabelin383 Thank you for sharing this with us. SAAB planes have always been an icon for us enthusiasts. It must be awesome for you to know the designers and engineers personally.

Thanks for sharing, I'd have loved your experience as a boy too \(^v^)/!

Hi I'm from Norway too and that sounds absolutely awesome

Yes.

Omg instantly cringed so hard when I heard that lol I’m from the southern unites states and knew as well lol

Draken is the nicest single-engine plane for me when it's in the air. The use of inlet openings as part of an angled delta was very innovative in the late 50's. And second is Viggen. Third is Mig-21. As a modeler, I remember him as a boy from an East German company in the 70's For example, in Czech language we have no difference between a Dragon. We call a kite as paper dragon,because the kite also has a tail.Greetings from the Czech Republic

Yes this is all true but the word "Drake" also means "Dragon". "Draken" would be "The Dragon". I served as a conscript with the 21 flotilla (that's what we call them) at Kallax, Luleå 1978-79. I saw a lot of Draken, on the ground and in the air.

@@larss337 Yes, in many languages ​​the dragon is meant to be a paper dragon and a mythical creature, because a paper dragon represents it, but in English it is different, they have 2 words for it! If, as the former pilot says, it's according to shape and not a mythical creature, that's what it's supposed to be called in English!

Draken är både Dragon och Kite. Svensk som bor i USA sedan 20 år och pappa var i flygvapnet.

Interesting! It is almost the same in German, where Drache means dragon, but Drachen means kite. Language is weird and exciting at the same time!

Oli varmaan jännää.

Ha. Great story, thnxx.

Thinking outside the box is the inevitable result of experiencing sequential akvavit, sauna with cold plunge and the aurora borealis. I've done it. Trust me, after that there is no more box.

Well with a nabour in the east with an endless manpower pool and tons of heavy weaponry we kinda have to be inovative to improve our chanses. Hopefully the big bad bear will get stunged on his nose and turn home with his tail between his legs…

Well, if it was that good, why did the design not survive. And why did the NATO countries decide to buy US fighter - probably due to their superiority over the swedish crap!

@@Jorn41 ain’t no need to disparage other countries’ equipment. Considering Sweden’s size, they did great coming up with something like this. Also, there’s a lot more to arms sales than just the capability of the equipment. A country is also attempting to curry favor by buying arms from a certain supplier (the good ol US of A in many cases).

@@Jorn41 I’m sorry, but no offense this comment shows how little you know/understand about arms procurement, especially on a large scale like NATO procurement. On top of that it shows your lack of jet aviation history. The design did last, it wasn’t retired until 2005. And is still used in various test pilot schools around the world for things like new avionics, weapons systems, and radar systems. It also broke and set numerous records that took the US some time to break themselves, so it was far from crap. If you paid attention to the video, you would know this was purposely designed and built to meet Sweden’s (and other Nordic countries) specific, niche needs, not the much broader needs of Central European countries that were heavily involved with the Cold War. Not only was this aircraft an excellent interceptor, but it also proved to be a great fighter with strong dogfighting capabilities. It gave US, Russian, UK, and French aircraft a good run for their money, so again it was far from “crap” When it comes to the procurement side of things, and why it wasn’t adopted by NATO, there’s a number of reasons. Cost and interoperability are the 2 of the most important aspects of arms procurement, especially on such a large scale. You have to remember that most of Central and Western Europe was in a very bad economic position at that time and were still recovering from WWII. The US at this time was having a major economic boom that had already been going on since WWII, and had been designing and producing aircraft on a massive scale for a decade. At this time, Sweden only had one aircraft manufacturer, while the US had about a dozen well established aircraft companies operating & manufacturing on a large scale(for an extended period of time). Not to mention the US & UK at the time had also had decades of research poured into aircraft weapons systems to sell in tandem with their aircraft. Combine all of these factors together, and you have not only a much lower per-unit cost, but you have better interoperability between different aircraft and their weapons systems. You are also able to manufacture and deliver these aircraft and systems very quickly since manufacturing plants and supply chains are already well established. Then on top of all of that, you have to factor in the major amount of lobbying done by the US to have their aircraft picked for NATO procurement. The US military industrial complex has always been heavily focused on profits, and after we got a taste during WWII with the various lend-lease programs, international arms sales became a goal of most defense contractors, and this factored in heavily when it came to designing new aircraft. Most aircraft designed & manufactured by the US in this time period were not solely or purposely built for just the US’ needs, unlike the Draken which was designed and produced solely for the needs of one country (Sweden) So basically what it comes down to, is NATO did not select this for procurement for a few main reasons; 1) Cost (US/UK planes and parts were cheaper) 2) Different specific needs (this wasn’t designed and built for their needs at the time) 3) Logistics & Time Constraints (they needed different types of interceptors and fighters as quickly as possible) Procurement isn’t always strictly based on performance, as stated above there’s many many other things that factor into it, and I only listed a FEW of the main ones. The Draken was far from crap, and it had way way less issues than other jet aircraft of the time.

Wow.. Det hade man velat vara med om

US Special Ops in Taiwan ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-CTfP_Ll8Ov8.html

Same thing happened to me as a kid also. Looked up when i heard the noise and the image of the Drakens shape has been burned into my memory ever since. The interesting thing is that this low level pass happened over the Åland Islands, an autonomous, demilitarised part of Finland. In my 44 years on this planet, it’s the only military machine i’ve seen here, other than some passing navy ships.

Was less "close" but equally awe inspiring seeing Gripen fly over a couple of hundred meters upp and waving at us when I lived in Östergötland as a child.

cons: Lightning retracts its gear in the wing tips. Pro: Lightning has nose which looks fast

There's a good doc on RU-vid about the ole buccaneers an there low level flying

It's astonishing look. Fast as hell!

Hehe a mean kite ;)

I built one 50-55 years ago, and always thought it was a unique looking aircraft.

It's like star wars?

That is so. The RAF should have bought the Viggen.

It's a good story, the J32 Lansen:s name came from the pitot-probe on the wing, the 37 Viggens name came from the thunderbolt in nordic mythology as Tor used his hammer and the bird Tufted duck as the canard wings in the front have the same appearance and finally Gripen is from the greek mythology.

The word "drake" is also another name for a male duck in swedish.

@@paulandersson6120 Isn't it cute that Viggen is named for a chubby little duck that looks like it's going through an emo phase.

Any info on where to read about those incidents?

@@ulflyng4072 Search for DC3 and the Catalina incident

@@kronop8884 👍

Interestig to hear. Austria lost only 1 pilot with/in a Draken, and that was during initial training still in sweden.

@@nirfz The 2 seat Draken for training and mastering superstall condition eventually helped reduce the accident rate but there where also technical issues such as engine failures that plagued the Draken. However there where at least 2 incidents with Austrialn pilots during training in Sweden, on Nov 18 1966 oberl Teja Reichhuber had to eject due to an uncontrolled flight condition (Superstall most likely) and on 11 Nov 1986 hauptm J Christian Wolf fatally crashed into the sea during a low altitude, high speed flight.

Hah, Han, did I really write 1779😂 The Draken is an older model, but not that old...

Thanks for your interest. We have added this aircraft carrier to our list. We will make a video as soon as possible.

That was the successor aircraft - the Viggen or loosely ”Thunderbolt”. There’s a video on those too on this channel.

Still does... there's nothing else like it's look

Yeah the accident rate of German Starfighters is scary

still does - Saab could do a budget Draken as Gripen is the budget Viggen

Still a beautiful bird.

Public and free school system all the way up to uneversity

The swedish economy was supercharged by not having its factories bombed during ww2, thus it could charge good money manufactor8ng goods for a europe undergoing rebuilding paid for by US taxpayers during marshall-plan. This made sweden the worlda richest country during a time. Also sweden is known for its extreme swings in military spending. After ww1 sweden completly defunded its military, after all there would be no more wars since UN was created. After realizing it was a fake aence if securiry, sweden spent up to 25% of its gdp on military after ww2. The worlds richest country spending 25% of its gdp on its defence led to sweden having the fourth largest airforce in the world for a time. But after the fall of soviet union there would obviosly never be a need of a national defence ever again, so we once again almost completely got rid if the army. Now we are slowly re-arming again, buyiing back expensive stuff that we sold out cheap/gave away for free after the fall of ussr

@@Lokieus lol. Sweden didn't become successful because of its social programs, it became successful DESPITE them. Compare Sweden to Switzerland after ww2, Switzerland has continued to grow while sweden has been in sort of a decline since the 80s

@@devrerffs If you think Sweden got rich from the Marshall plan you are seriously overestimating it in the case of Sweden, it did however come with free market requirements which arguably had a bigger impact than the money itself for most countries receiving it, and in fact Sweden received roughly as much as Switzerland. The Marshall Plan grants represented less than 3% of the combined national income of the recipient countries between 1948 and 1951, which would mean an added increase in GDP growth of only 0.3%.

@@devrerffs I for one am happy that Sweden is putting some cash into defence again. We, here in Finland, welcome all the help we can get to stop the Sov… eh, Russians having any funny ideas, and of course, throwing iron to the border if push comes to shove.

I believe that was Viggen, they had a very sophisticated missile system allowing them to not only get a missile launch or lock from behind but also from the front. They simply intercepted the Blackbirds path in front of it and gained the lock in an an head-on position, taking away the ability to use speed as an evasive maneuver.

Yes they did. It was a sr 71 limping back to base on 1 engine. They intercepted it. Escorted it back protecting it from soviet jets already inbound to intercept and destroy the crippled sr 71 flying at just over mach 1. Was a great read

​@@darinr9424u r talking about 2 different events

@@staffan144 yea that was the viggens

As far as a quick internet search shows, the answere is yes. By 1 year. (Both 1st flight 1 year before the Dassault Mirage III and being in service 1 year before the Mirage III )

Forest camouflage so you can hide it in the forest.

Tunnan and Lansen weren't that bad either. Tunnan even set the world speed record in 1954 and 1955. They were just in the period of insane aircraft technology advancements so the Tunnan had only served a handful of years before the first Draken took flight.

Initially supplemented it. Later, recon and interceptor variants began to replaced it.

It was meant to be used in J32 Lansen, but the RR Avon was chosen instead. The Dovern became an industrial gas turbine.