# How would you build your Air Force in 1960?



## Lucky13 (Aug 10, 2012)

Being that Sweden had the fourth (I think) largest Air Force in the late '50's and early '60's, with about 1,000 modern aircraft, I thought that I'd try this...
If you had a country, in which you were Big Cheese of the Air Force, you have the same kind of borders, to other countries and to the sea, how would you build up your Air Force, you get 1,000 to use....they need to be in active frontline service by 01/01/60!


----------



## vinnye (Aug 11, 2012)

I would build my airforce around the English Electric Lightning.
It was well known for its ability to climb rapidly and was well thought of by its pilots.


----------



## davebender (Aug 11, 2012)

Capable but low endurance. I would prefer something that can remain in the air longer. 

American aircraft tend to be expensive but capable. I would procure the USN F4 Phantom if we can afford it. Otherwise I would consider the French Mirage III.


----------



## ShVAK (Aug 18, 2012)

Well, since you mentioned Sweden and this is a small to medium-sized country with presumably good Western relations in our hypo, the perfect multirole fighter in my mind would've been the Saab 35 Draken, first flight 1955, first deliveries 1959. 

From Wiki:



> As the jet era started, Sweden foresaw the need for a jet fighter that could intercept bombers at high altitude and also successfully engage fighters. Although other interceptors such as the US Air Force's F-104 Starfighter were being conceived during the same period, Saab's "Draken" would have to undertake a combat role unique to Sweden. Other demanding requirements were the capability to operate from reinforced public roads used as part of wartime airbases, and for refuelling/rearming to be carried out in no more than ten minutes, by conscripts with minimal training.
> 
> ... A ram turbine, under the nose, provided emergency power and the engine had a built-in emergency starter unit. The Draken could deploy a drag chute to reduce its landing distance.



Yeah, sounds perfect to me. Incorporate some of the Danish Draken mods (AGM-12 Bullpup missiles, advanced ECM, increased internal and external fuel stores) down the road and you have a very versatile plane with moderate STOL capability and good performance that is way better built than export MiG's, comparable with the Mirage III and better and cheaper in the fighter role than that overweight F-4 pig. I would have wanted about 130-150 Drakens, from there it gets a bit tougher. 

For maritime roles (if applicable) I would've wanted about 20 P2V Neptune, maybe some S-2 Trackers as well. 

For tactical medium to long range airlift, about 200 transports--30 C-130's, along with an assortment of smaller twin-engine types, C-1 Traders etc. 

About 50-100 UH-1's for infantry. Bigger helis like the Mi-8 (not NATO, but too good to ignore) are only a short ways down the road so I'd hold out for those. 

For CAS, recon, ECM etc. about 100 AD-1's and for dedicated strike/anti-shipping aircraft about 50-75 A-4's.

20 E-1 Tracers for AWACS. 

A mixed fleet of trainers--T-28's, T-37's, T-33's etc. A few SK 35's (Draken trainers). 

Don't need any strategic bombers or tankers--leave that crap to SAC and NATO. This is strictly home defense.


----------



## davebender (Aug 19, 2012)

What about air to surface? The F-4 carried a huge payload. So that overweight and over priced F-4 can double as a bomber in addition to being one of the best 1960s era fighter aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 19, 2012)

ShVAK said:


> Bigger helis like the Mi-8 (not NATO, but too good to ignore) are only a short ways down the road so I'd hold out for those.



You might as well hold out a few more years then, and wait for the CH-53 and the CH-47. Hell the CH-47 came out around the same time as the Mi-8 anyhow. Both much better aircraft, than the Hip, at least in my opinion and my experience...

But for Air Assault you will want to stick with the UH-1s anyhow.

Don't take me wrong, the Hip is not a bad aircraft. Used all over the world.


----------



## ShVAK (Aug 19, 2012)

With the right modifications Drakens are sufficient in the strike role, and A-4's are no slouches either. 

I don't know, never liked the Phantom as a multirole aircraft. Sure it's fine for intercepting bombers and it's passable as a strike aircraft but it's a miserable dogfighter that has to rely on boom-and-zoom tactics to hold its own against MiG-21's. We succeeded with it over Vietnam based on the strength of our pilots and superiority in numbers, not because the F-4 was great as a fighter. 

Plus it's not a cheap plane to maintain or operate, no '60s frontline fighter jet truly was but the Draken (like a lot of other Saab designs) has much going for it if you're waging a defensive war and have to make do with limited resources and manpower, and its service history shows it could be adapted to other roles with at least some level of success. You can make a good dogfighter drop bombs, but you can't make a big, heavy interceptor and bomb truck a good dogfighter, at least not with the level of tech available in 1960.


----------



## ShVAK (Aug 19, 2012)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You might as well hold out a few more years then, and wait for the CH-53 and the CH-47. Hell the CH-47 came out around the same time as the Mi-8 anyhow. Both much better aircraft, than the Hip, at least in my opinion and my experience...
> 
> But for Air Assault you will want to stick with the UH-1s anyhow.
> 
> Don't take me wrong, the Hip is not a bad aircraft. Used all over the world.



True, I thought of those two and the S-61 (which would've also been available around the same time). Those would be on the table as well. 

I just like the Mi-8 because of its excellent versatility and relatively low price versus the NATO alternatives. There's a reason why the Hip is still in production, it's one of those evergreen machines like the C-130 that will always be useful.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 19, 2012)

ShVAK said:


> With the right modifications Drakens are sufficient in the strike role, and A-4's are no slouches either.
> 
> I don't know, never liked the Phantom as a multirole aircraft. Sure it's fine for intercepting bombers and it's passable as a strike aircraft but it's a miserable dogfighter that has to rely on boom-and-zoom tactics to hold its own against MiG-21's. We succeeded with it over Vietnam based on the strength of our pilots and superiority in numbers, not because the F-4 was great as a fighter.
> 
> Plus it's not a cheap plane to maintain or operate, no '60s frontline fighter jet truly was but the Draken (like a lot of other Saab designs) has much going for it if you're waging a defensive war and have to make do with limited resources and manpower, and its service history shows it could be adapted to other roles with at least some level of success. You can make a good dogfighter drop bombs, but you can't make a big, heavy interceptor and bomb truck a good dogfighter, at least not with the level of tech available in 1960.


Yje Saab 35 is much like the EE Lightning its great if your protecting your back yard it has no range


----------



## ShVAK (Aug 19, 2012)

Early Drakens were pretty range-limited but the later J 35F models had about 2,000 miles with drop tanks. Which is plenty. 

Anyway it doesn't matter too much, since I was assuming this was a home defense force anyway.


----------



## davebender (Aug 20, 2012)

Not necessarily true. The best dogfighters tend to be light in weight. Too lightly constructed for carrying several tons of ordnance plus several more tons of fuel in drop tanks. 

Modern day guided weapons change the equation. If accuracy is over 50% then you don't need to carry as many. But during 1960 you will be dropping iron bombs and most of them will miss the target.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 20, 2012)

Of the aircraft mentioned so far, only the Draken can meet the timeline of 01,01, 1960.
The F-4 just became operational in early 1960 with the USN, and i'd doubt they'd be willing to share their latest technology with anyone at that point, in the real world, it was 1968 before any F-4s were exported.
Same with the Mirage III, not operational till 61 even in France, they were more willing to export, but even so it was several years.
Even the UH-1 was just becoming operational in the US Army in 1960.

I know the country is not Sweden, but like Sweden. Most countries are not going to export their latest technology.
If you has serious defense needs, and Sweden did, you need to develope your own defense industries.. Which is maybe why Sweden did.


----------



## davebender (Aug 20, 2012)

Not so sure about that. 

France sold the Mirage III and other military hardware to anyone with cash in hand. IMO it only makes sense to build your own if you can do it cheaper then foreign made weapons of equal quality.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 20, 2012)

davebender said:


> Not so sure about that.
> 
> France sold the Mirage III and other military hardware to anyone with cash in hand. IMO it only makes sense to build your own if you can do it cheaper then foreign made weapons of equal quality.


 France was selling no Mirage III's in 1960, they weren't even operational in the Armee de L'Air till July 61. Though South Africa and Israel put in orders for them in late 60. First Israel aircraft delivered in April 1962.
Complex weapon systems bought from other countries can come with conditions, Like the Mirage III's sold to Israel. Though those conditions didn't exist when they were purchased.
Any country that wants true independance has to develope it's own weapons, it might be cheaper to import, but imports can be stopped at any time.
Saving a dollar is way down on the priority list when you're talking national survival.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 20, 2012)

The original scenario is these aircraft have to be on the scene and in sevice by 01,01, 1960.
So they would have had to be ordered several years previous, neither the F-4, or Mirage III, Huey, would meet that deadline.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 21, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> ...Saving a dollar is way down on the priority list when you're talking national survival.


Not only that, but relying on an external source for your military hardware means that you are reliant on that supplier being your friend even in times of international distress, shifting alliances etc...

If your diplomacy fails with the vendor nation, then you run the risk of literally being up a creek without a paddle...


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 21, 2012)

> The original scenario is these aircraft have to be on the scene and in sevice by 01,01, 1960.



Unfortunately that precludes the EE Lightning too, not that you'd have a hope of getting one so soon anyway. The reason why the Lightning wasn't widely exported is because its AIRPASS radar/gun sight combo and Firestreak missiles were considered too advanced for export. Saudi and Kuwait were the only export customers of the type.

Other than having a short range, apparently it was a pig to work on too. Being a point defence interceptor, short range wasn't so much of an issue over the UK airspace once in-flight refuelling came in on later models, but even still, the F.6 had a useful endurance of about an hour. Nothing could beat it in time to climb at that time though.

Fighter, F-100 Super Sabre, bomber/photo recon, English Electric Canberra. fighter bomber, Hawker Hunter, close support, A-1 Skyraider. Assault/general purpose helo _has_ to be the UH-1 (in service date 1958 ). C-130 transports.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 21, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> UH-1 (in service date 1958 ).



Nope, not true. 

First Flight - XH-40 (as the prototype was called): 20 October 1956
Ordered into Production - HU-1A Iroquois: March 1960


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 21, 2012)

The main U.S. transport helo in service through 31Dec59 was the UH-19...


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 21, 2012)

> Ordered into Production - HU-1A Iroquois: March 1960



Snap - I was looking at pre-production examples: six YH-40s were ordered and were in service by August 1958, followed by nine pre-production HU-1As in 1959...

Damn, can't use the Huey then. Ordered it though.


----------



## davebender (Aug 23, 2012)

> Saving a dollar is way down on the priority list when you're talking national survival


I wasn't aware 1960 Sweden was threatened with invasion.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 23, 2012)

davebender said:


> I wasn't aware 1960 Sweden was threatened with invasion.


 Surely you're kidding. 1960 was at the height of the cold war, and the USSR was less than 200 miles away across the Baltic sea from Sweden. Europe was holding it's breath.
Meanwhile back in America, me and other 7th graders were learning "duck and cover" and crawling under our desks during civil defense drills.


----------



## davebender (Aug 24, 2012)

The USA faced serious danger for the first time since 1815 but in Europe there was nothing especially dangerous about 1960. Europe was more peaceful during 1960 then it had been most of the proceeding 2,000 years.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 24, 2012)

davebender said:


> The USA faced serious danger for the first time since 1815 but in Europe there was nothing especially dangerous about 1960. Europe was more peaceful during 1960 then it had been most of the proceeding 2,000 years.



Better not try to sell that to the relatives of the Germans killed in the 53 East German troubles, the Polish riots in 56, or the Hungarian revolt of 56. Constant confrontations over Berlin.
Then the collaspe of the Paris Summit of 1960 over the U-2 incident ( the pilot was from my home town)

Then the Cuban missile crises of 62, if that came to a war, everybody knew where most of it would be fought.

The Europe of 1960's especially the early 60's was probably more on edge that the Europe of summer 1939.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 25, 2012)

But in 1960, how many European cities burned?

How many European roads were choked with refugees while columns of troops (foreign or domestic) marched past?

How many European fields and countrysides were littered with broken corpses of soldiers and the litter of battle?

The time period between the close of WWII until now is most likely the longest span of relative peace the European continent has seen since the Neanderthal and modern man jostled for control of the land...


----------



## parsifal (Aug 25, 2012)

If i were in that position, the primary mission has to be air support. However multi role is possible. f4s are god, but expensive, and had not really matured as adesign in 1960I would think a mix of F8 crusaders and A-4 Skyhawks would be the best bet. wessex helicopters, Grumman Tracker ASW. C130 transports for rear area transport KC 130 airborne tankers (1958), DHC-4 Caribou tactical transport. Trainers would be Wirraway primary trainers, advanced trainers would be MB326


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 25, 2012)

GrauGeist said:


> But in 1960, how many European cities burned?
> 
> How many European roads were choked with refugees while columns of troops (foreign or domestic) marched past?
> 
> ...



The Balkans is part of Europe isn't it? You seem to have forgotten about Bosnia, Croatia, etc. What's "relative peace" ?

We seem to be looking at the 60's fifty years later, and with hindsight saying , nothing happened.
During the early 60's most of the adult population of Europe had experienced WW2. They knew if there was a WW3, it would be fought in their front yards, and it would make WW2 look like kindergarden.

It's easy for us, 50 years later, to say they had nothing to worry about.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 25, 2012)

I was just entering high school in 1960, but I remember the early 60's as being a scary time.
I was pretty tuned in to current events at the time. One older brother in the Army, my older sister's husband was in the USAF, and a family i'd known all my life had a son missing over Russia ( U-2 shoot down). And things just kept getting worse. Berlin crisis, Bay of Pigs, Cuban missile crisis.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 25, 2012)

Looking back through European history sees that there was always the threat of invasion from hostile neighbors...and a hostile neighbor could be anything from a neighboring kingdom to a roaming band of Vikings...

I am fully aware of the Balkan states and the ugly conflict that occurred in the 90's, it was both tragic and inexcusable, but it did not pull the continent into a full scale war (like it could have in years past).

Living under the fear of war is different then actually having a war going on around you. It's like living in a town surrounded by a thick forest. You'll always be aprehensive about a fire...


----------



## parsifal (Aug 25, 2012)

Having an effective military deterreent is one of the ways to avoid wars, so designing your military forces for maximum effecicieny is what peacetime armed forces are all about


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 2, 2012)

Always liked this one for the attack role, SAAB 32 Lansen!







*Design and development*
The Saab Company was approached in 1948 to develop a turbojet-powered strike aircraft to replace a series of 1940s vintage attack, reconnaissance and night-fighter aircraft in the Flygvapnet: the Saab B 18/S 18, J 21R/A 21R and J 30 (de Havilland Mosquito). The design was initially designated the P1150.

Swedish Air Force requirements for the P1150 were demanding: the aircraft had to be able to attack anywhere along Sweden's 1,245 miles (2000 km) of coastline within one hour of launch from a central location. It had to be capable of being launched in any weather, day or night. Special attention was to be paid to integrating the electronics and weapons systems to create the equivalent of today's weapons systems approach to combat aircraft design. The aircraft was to be armed with four 20 mm cannons, rockets, bombs and/or a new anti-ship missile being developed, the Rb 04.

The design team created a sleek airframe with clean lines powered by a license-built Rolls-Royce Avon Series 100. Uniquely, the design of the swept wings was the result of an early application of computer technology. To test the 35° sweepback design, a half-scale wing was mounted on a Saab Safir, the Saab 202 Safir. The design initially featured both Fowler flaps and a leading edge slot. The slot was discarded as unnecessary after trials with the prototypes and never appeared on a production aircraft. A small batch of P1150 prototypes completed design and evaluation trials with series production of the newly renamed Saab J 32 Lansen (J for "Jakt" [Fighter]) beginning in 1953. There were no trainer versions, but some Lansens had rudimentary controls installed in the rear seat.

*Operational History*
When the A 32A entered service they replaced the last piston-powered SAAB B 18 bomber. Soon after entering squadron service, the J 32 Lansen broke the sound barrier on 25 October 1953 when a production aircraft exceeded Mach 1 in a shallow dive. The J 32 carried four 30 mm ADEN cannons while the A 32 ("A" stands for attack) had an armament of four 20 mm Bofors m/49 cannon hidden under flaps in the nose and the Rb 04C anti-ship missile, one of the earliest of its type in western service. The Lansen normally was fitted with two missiles but it could also carry an additional missile. Its main role was to prevent any Soviet invasion across Sweden's extensive coastline.

One planned use of the A 32A was to deliver nuclear warheads or chemical weapons. Sweden had an active nuclear weapons program during the 1950s and 1960s, but no weapons were ever produced.

The A 32 Lansen was Sweden's last purpose-built attack aircraft. Throughout the Cold War years, the Lansen distinguished itself with a solid if unspectacular career; Swedish pilots often described it as pleasant to fly. Gradually being replaced by more modern types, the Saab 32 soldiered on into the late 1990s. Two still remain operational with the sole task of taking high altitude air samples for research purposes in collaboration with the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority. One of these was used to collect volcanic ash samples in April and May 2010

*A 32A*
Ground attack and maritime strike version. 287 aircraft built between 1955 and 1957, retired in 1978. Armed with four 20 mm Bofors nose guns (license-built Hispano-Suiza Mk V guns) and could carry two SAAB 304 missiles or unguided rocket pods.

*J 32B*
All-weather fighter version initially operated only for bad weather / night fighter duties. Two prototypes and 118 production aircraft built between 1958 and 1960, retired in 1973. Armed with four 30 mm ADEN guns, Rb 24 missiles (license-built AIM-9 Sidewinder) , or 75 mm unguided rocket pods. J 32B was powered by stronger Svenska Flygmotor RM 6A (Rolls-Royce Avon Mk 47A) engine.

*S 32C*
Specialized maritime and photo reconnaissance version developed from A 32A. 45 aircraft built between 1958 and 1959, retired in 1978. Equipped with PS-432/A radar with extended range and with four cameras - two SKa 17 and two SKa 18.

*J 32D*
Target tug version. Six J 32B were modified, retired in 1997.

*J 32E*
ECM (electronic warfare / electronic countermeasures) version used also for ECM training. Fourteen J 32B were modified, retired in 1997. Aircraft was equipped with jamming system G 24 in one of three versions (for L, S or C bands) used for jamming ground and naval radars. Additionally Adrian (for S and C bands) and Petrus (for X band) pods were used for jamming aerial radars.

*J 32AD*
Project of day fighter version from 1953 as interim solution between the J 29 Tunnan and J 35 Draken, designated J 32AD ("D" stands for Dag [day]). Aircraft was lighter, without radar and armed with four 20 mm and one 30 mm guns in nose and different missiles. None built, 120 Hawker Hunter fighters bought instead.

*J 32U*
Project of fighter version from 1954 ("U" stands for utveckling [development]) with much better performance than J 32B. Aircraft was equipped with stronger Rolls-Royce RA 19R engine and had improved wing design.
--------------------------------------------------
Me think, a 32 Lansen with a load RB 04, would be as lethal as anything...


----------

