Draken vs Mirage 3. The sexiest of the 2nd gen fighters

To come back to the original question, I think that one of the main differences between the Mirage III and the Draken was not to be found in the on-paper specs but in the pilot experience.
According to the report from a Draken pilot, the Draken had so many flight restrictions that it is said that “you don’t fly the Draken, the Draken flies you”. It meant that the pilot had to concentrate heavily on the flying controls to not overcome one of the Draken many altitude/speed/angle/G limitations.
OTH the Mirage III was described by one of the Israeli aces that flew it in combat as a “fighter plane”. You fly it without restrictions (except when landing) and you are able to concentrate on the fight, the plane behaves sanely and does what asked whenever asked.

if those points and costs were true
then the Ligtening would have been the best. 2nd best results and cheapest operating costs…

but somehow I cant believe it. This is the BAC lightening!?
isn’t it significantly heavier and more complicated than the Mirage or Draken?

Yes, THE BAC/EE Lightning (never found out which version was offered specifically, presumably F6). It initially looked like the winner. I can also imagine that purely from a performance standpoint (for typical QRA intercept missions) it could have edged out the Draken and Mirage.

The acquisition costs were the lowest of the bunch but the ongoing costs were the highest, owing to the higher weight, 2 engines and complexity.

As mentioned, the Swedes dropped the acquisition price by 300m ATS in the end and thus came in just below the Lightening in terms of costs (5.1 vs. 5.2 billion overall, incl. est. operating costs). Thus the Draken was the cheapest offer (important politically) with less than 2% worse result in the technical/operational score.

On top of it there was clearly a bias towards Saab due to the long history of using Saab planes, the close relationships between the social democratic parties ruling both Sweden and Austria at the time and the fact that Sweden was another “neutral” country (less likely to ‘poke the bear’ next door). Another argument mentioned at the time was that the Lightning was already on the way out in British and Saudi service at the time (purchase in 1984, planned FOC of all planes in 1988) whereas the Swedes, Finns and Danes all anticipated to fly their dragons well into the 1990s. This was seen as a big plus for spare part availability and training opportunities (Austria didn’t purchase twin-seaters but looked for a training agreement with the air force of the country of origin instead).

Still, F-5E/F or even ex-USAF F-5A/B would also have had to be included also in due logic.

The F-5E was offered repeatedly (also unsolicited) to Austria throughout the 1970s and early 1980s (especially, given their success in neighbouring Switzerland). In the competition that led to the eventual acquisition of the Draken in 1984 the F-5E was disqualified early as Northrop refused to submit a fixed price and only accepted sales contracts under US law (i.e. any disputes would have had to be settled at a US court). Not sure if that offer was structured as an FMS deal and the conditions were a result of it or Northrop was not serious about the competition.

While the Tiger was arguably the better dogfighter, it was probably inferior to the Draken, or Lightening and Mirage 50 for that matter, in the intended role (QRA – requiring fast climb, quick acceleration, high dash speed, all-weather capability, good radar and maybe even GCI datalink would be nice etc.). At least that’s what one of the Austrian fighter pilots told me during an airshow when they briefly used former Swiss Tigers as a stopgap until the delivery of the Austrian Eurofighters. Judging by the publicly available performance data, that seems plausible.

if those points and costs were true
then the Ligtening would have been the best. 2nd best results and cheapest operating costs…

but somehow I cant believe it. This is the BAC lightening!?
isn’t it significantly heavier and more complicated than the Mirage or Draken?

If you read closely, you see that Lightning had very high operating costs. I suppose the airframes themselves would have been really cheap, then (they were from Saudi-Arabia).
Saab made another offer which put the cost structure just under Lightning.

I guess there were no used F-5’s available.Or if there were, they were F-5A’s which wasn’t very hot ship by 1980’s.

As underlined above, the Mirage 50 didn’t really have a radar* to claim the best of air superiority skills but it made its way in some airforces that appreciated that easier to sustain Mach 2 light Mirage. As a new airframe with advanced avionics regarding what fielded the competition, I don’t see any incoherence to not have added it to the mix. Still, F-5E/F or even ex-USAF F-5A/B would also have had to be included also in due logic.

*the infamous Cyrano IV flashlight like radar

The case of Austria is indeed an interesting one. The Draken and the Mirage III were evaluated several times over nearly 20 years with varying outcomes before the Austrian Air Force eventually bought the Swedish jet in the 1980s. .

In 1965 Saab offered 20-30 Draken (not sure about the version but given the year, presumably B or D) as a replacement for the J-29F Tunnan used by the Austrian Air Force at the time. At USD 1m per plane, including one squadron of J-35A for rent until the new built examples would arrive. The offer was considered unaffordable and at the same time the Northrop F-5A was the frontrunner to succeed the J29F. Partly because of the price and partly because the army factions within the armed forces preferred a fighter bomber and reconnaissance plane and had little appreciation for the need of air defense or, even less, air policing.

In 1967 a formal competition, including test flights by Austrian pilots, was conducted during which the F-5A, J-35D, A-4F and Mirage IIIE were evaluated. How the Skyhawk made it into the mix is a bit of a mystery given that the main task for the new plane was supposed to be air policing in peace and limited air defense during crisis situations (nobody ever believed that Austria could maintain air superiority in a WW III scenario). Predictably, the Mirage and Draken proved to be the most capable. In fact the Mirage was ranked first in terms of capability but was considered more complex and came with a noticeably higher price tag (10m Austrian Schilling more, at the time USD 0.4m, per plane). The evaluation commission recommended the purchase of 24 J-35D but, for reasons that are unclear to this day, the government eventually ordered a second batch of 20 Saab 105XT jet trainer. They would serve as the main “air surveillance aircraft” into the 1980s and still carry out a large part of QRA duties today (!!!).

In the mid-70s the Austrian government briefly considered the purchase a cousin of the Mirage III. The Israeli Kfir C2. Presumably, for mostly political reasons as the Austrian government at the time was very active in Middle Eastern diplomacy. After protests by Arab countries the idea was quickly shelved. Soon after, in 1980 the decision was made to purchase 24 new Mirage 50. Nothing is known about the selection process. The main criteria seemed to have been price as it was marketed as a cheap and proven alternative to the early 3rd generation jets of the time and was superior to the F-5E (which was repeatedly pitched to Austria during the 70s and 80s) as a QRA interceptor (climb rate, acceleration and top speed after scramble). Eventually, the budget for the purchase wasn’t approved.

In the early 80s the government undertook another attempt to purchase a “real” fighter jet. Scarred by the experience the focus was on used jets of the 2nd generation (J-35D, Mirage IIIE and BAC Lightening, not sure which version was offered exactly), although new Mirage 50 were in the mix again as well. According to an article in a magazine of the Austrian Army the technical evaluation led to the following results (score out of 1000)

1. Mirage 50 (675 pts) – unsurprisingly given the newer engine and avionics
2. Lightening (633 pts)
3. J-35D (622 pts)
4. Mirage IIIE (572 pts)

It is not clear what the criteria were used and the respective weighting but it is striking that the J-35D was now seen as considerably more capable than the Mirage IIIE while the evaluation of the same types about 16-17 years earlier came to the opposite conclusion.

Eventually, the price made the difference. The Mirage, even the used IIIE versions, were still considerably more expensive than the Draken (or the Lightning).

Total costs, incl. estimated operating costs for 10yrs (1000 h) in billions of Austrian Schilling:
Mirage 50 – 12.5b
Mirage III E – 8.8b
J35D Draken – 5.4b
Lightening – 5.2b

In the end the Draken won out. The acquisition costs were eventually negotiated down (2.4 instead of 2.7 billion Austrian Schilling) which gave it a slight financial edge over the Lightening. The Draken was considered to have the lowest operating costs in the field (but only just ahead of the Mirage IIIE) while the Lightening had the highest (estimated to be 1.6 x as high as the Draken per flight hour). Not surprising, considering that the two jets used the same engine, except the Lightening had 2 of them. Quite likely the long and close relationship of the Austrian air force with Saab (J-29F, S-91 Safir, S-105XT) and the political angle of another “neutral” country with an equally social-democratic dominated government played a role as well.

That didn’t prevent huge protests and a public perception that the Draken was a piece of crap. The death of an Austrian trainee pilot in a crash during conversion training in Sweden is not only testament to the not-so carefree handling of the Draken in some areas of the flight envelope (super-stall was already mentioned) but also almost killed its introduction into Austrian service. It definitely killed whatever was left of its reputation. That changed only slowly after the jets were used successfully to prevent further incursions by Yugoslavian MiGs during the civil war of 1991 in neighbouring Slovenia.

if those points and costs were true
then the Ligtening would have been the best. 2nd best results and cheapest operating costs…

but somehow I cant believe it. This is the BAC lightening!?
isn’t it significantly heavier and more complicated than the Mirage or Draken?

Cool, that was super-interesting. I had read about the ’80s evaluation but did not know any deeper details before that. That preference for Mirage 50 was strange, though that variant did have real radar, no?

The evaluation commission recommended the purchase of 24 J-35D but, for reasons that are unclear to this day, the government eventually ordered a second batch of 20 Saab 105XT jet trainer. They would serve as the main “air surveillance aircraft” into the 1980s and still carry out a large part of QRA duties today (!!!).

What?! Don’t you have Typhoons for QRA? Saab 105 can’t catch anything. 105 was one of the planes competing for Finnish Air Force advanced trainer requirement in the ’70s and FAF CinC threatened to resign if slow slug like Saab was selected.

The case of Austria is indeed an interesting one. The Draken and the Mirage III were evaluated several times over nearly 20 years with varying outcomes before the Austrian Air Force eventually bought the Swedish jet in the 1980s. .

In 1965 Saab offered 20-30 Draken (not sure about the version but given the year, presumably B or D) as a replacement for the J-29F Tunnan used by the Austrian Air Force at the time. At USD 1m per plane, including one squadron of J-35A for rent until the new built examples would arrive. The offer was considered unaffordable and at the same time the Northrop F-5A was the frontrunner to succeed the J29F. Partly because of the price and partly because the army factions within the armed forces preferred a fighter bomber and reconnaissance plane and had little appreciation for the need of air defense or, even less, air policing.

In 1967 a formal competition, including test flights by Austrian pilots, was conducted during which the F-5A, J-35D, A-4F and Mirage IIIE were evaluated. How the Skyhawk made it into the mix is a bit of a mystery given that the main task for the new plane was supposed to be air policing in peace and limited air defense during crisis situations (nobody ever believed that Austria could maintain air superiority in a WW III scenario). Predictably, the Mirage and Draken proved to be the most capable. In fact the Mirage was ranked first in terms of capability but was considered more complex and came with a noticeably higher price tag (10m Austrian Schilling more, at the time USD 0.4m, per plane). The evaluation commission recommended the purchase of 24 J-35D but, for reasons that are unclear to this day, the government eventually ordered a second batch of 20 Saab 105XT jet trainer. They would serve as the main “air surveillance aircraft” into the 1980s and still carry out a large part of QRA duties today (!!!).

In the mid-70s the Austrian government briefly considered the purchase a cousin of the Mirage III. The Israeli Kfir C2. Presumably, for mostly political reasons as the Austrian government at the time was very active in Middle Eastern diplomacy. After protests by Arab countries the idea was quickly shelved. Soon after, in 1980 the decision was made to purchase 24 new Mirage 50. Nothing is known about the selection process. The main criteria seemed to have been price as it was marketed as a cheap and proven alternative to the early 3rd generation jets of the time and was superior to the F-5E (which was repeatedly pitched to Austria during the 70s and 80s) as a QRA interceptor (climb rate, acceleration and top speed after scramble). Eventually, the budget for the purchase wasn’t approved.

In the early 80s the government undertook another attempt to purchase a “real” fighter jet. Scarred by the experience the focus was on used jets of the 2nd generation (J-35D, Mirage IIIE and BAC Lightening, not sure which version was offered exactly), although new Mirage 50 were in the mix again as well. According to an article in a magazine of the Austrian Army the technical evaluation led to the following results (score out of 1000)

1. Mirage 50 (675 pts) – unsurprisingly given the newer engine and avionics
2. Lightening (633 pts)
3. J-35D (622 pts)
4. Mirage IIIE (572 pts)

It is not clear what the criteria were used and the respective weighting but it is striking that the J-35D was now seen as considerably more capable than the Mirage IIIE while the evaluation of the same types about 16-17 years earlier came to the opposite conclusion.

Eventually, the price made the difference. The Mirage, even the used IIIE versions, were still considerably more expensive than the Draken (or the Lightning).

Total costs, incl. estimated operating costs for 10yrs (1000 h) in billions of Austrian Schilling:
Mirage 50 – 12.5b
Mirage III E – 8.8b
J35D Draken – 5.4b
Lightening – 5.2b

In the end the Draken won out. The acquisition costs were eventually negotiated down (2.4 instead of 2.7 billion Austrian Schilling) which gave it a slight financial edge over the Lightening. The Draken was considered to have the lowest operating costs in the field (but only just ahead of the Mirage IIIE) while the Lightening had the highest (estimated to be 1.6 x as high as the Draken per flight hour). Not surprising, considering that the two jets used the same engine, except the Lightening had 2 of them. Quite likely the long and close relationship of the Austrian air force with Saab (J-29F, S-91 Safir, S-105XT) and the political angle of another “neutral” country with an equally social-democratic dominated government played a role as well.

That didn’t prevent huge protests and a public perception that the Draken was a piece of crap. The death of an Austrian trainee pilot in a crash during conversion training in Sweden is not only testament to the not-so carefree handling of the Draken in some areas of the flight envelope (super-stall was already mentioned) but also almost killed its introduction into Austrian service. It definitely killed whatever was left of its reputation. That changed only slowly after the jets were used successfully to prevent further incursions by Yugoslavian MiGs during the civil war of 1991 in neighbouring Slovenia.

Draken could do head-on attacks with its radar and missiles, MiG-21 couldn’t. Also I think Draken radar had considerably wider scan area. MiG-21F of course had no real radar at all.

Woow, then mig 21 bis must have really poor visibilty, I am 180 cm high, and had very little view forward in the plane 🙂 As I understood, all things considered, mig lost must of the time when they where not shure where enemy was, and had to find them themself.

I have been sitting in the cockpit of both planes, and can tell you that most of the time, a mig21f would not stand a chance meeting and Draken if he does not have help from groundcontroll radar.
Mig21 have very poor visibilty out compared to Draken, and you have to manually adjust sights and radar etc with a 1000 buttons and switches. If you really manage the workload in Mig 21’s and could have an alternative carier as an very god piano player, then you would crush the Draken with an mig21f in close air fight, according to the finish Draken mecanic I spoked with at the finish airforcemuseum. Very few mig21 pilots in finland became that godd with the plane.

According to experienced MiG-21 -pilot, 21F had quite good view out of the cockpit, but 21bis was considerably worse. Cockpit was somewhat confusing and pilots would sometimes make simple errors like deploying the brake chute when trying to fire the cannon etc.
Big advantage of MiG was carefree handling, it would not spin or stall violently unless you tried. Spin recovery was not even practiced. By contrast in Draken, pilot had to constantly monitor AoA to avoid superstall.

ADC aircraft such as the F-94 Starfire, F-89 Scorpion, F-101B Voodoo, and F-4 Phantom were controlled by SAGE GCI. The F-104 Starfighter was “too small to be equipped with [SAGE] data link equipment” and used voice-commanded GCI,^[2]:229 but the F-106 Delta Dart was equipped for the automated data link (ADL).^{[citation needed]} The ADL was designed to allow Interceptors that reached targets to transmit real-time tactical friendly and enemy movements and to determine whether sector defence reinforcement was necessary.^[24]

Familiarization flights allowed SAGE weapons directors to fly on two-seat interceptors to observe GCI operations.^{[citation needed]}Surface-to-air missile installations for CIM-10 Bomarc interceptors were displayed on SAGE consoles.^[75]

Source (already posted):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-Automatic_Ground_Environment

no it wasn’t unique…. F-94C, SabreDog (L & K), F-89, F-102… all were built before the Draken with an operational Datalink.

genuinely interested. Develop please?

what were Finlands experiences about MiG-21 and Draken sinc they had both?
from you rstatement i assume Swedish products were cheaper than French

Draken was always seen as more capable than MiG-21. It had better radar, more extensive avionics and armament setup and better endurance. MiG was faster and more agile though, and had better high-altitude performance. Particularly MiG-21F is always remembered being great to fly.

Finland got pricing information from Danish 1968 evaluation. At that time, Draken costed 6.1 million FIM, F-5 6.2 million and Mirage III 7.1 million.

Draken had a datalink, which was quite unique at the time.

Datalink was not exported. Though Finland eventually developed their own.

no it wasn’t unique…. F-94C, SabreDog (L & K), F-89, F-102… all were built before the Draken with an operational Datalink.

Draken had a datalink, which was quite unique at the time.

woops that was a mirage 2000!

Yeah, real nice – though that’s Mirage 2000.

But why does it have a Draken hull number? Mirage would be MR-202 or something.

FAF wanted Mirage in early ’60s, but it was much too expensive. So MiG-21 was acquired instead. FAF considered Mirages many times, but always they were found bit too pricey.

French equipment is always expensive, but at least you’re getting something good for the time.

you’re finnish arent you? what were Finlands experiences about MiG-21 and Draken sinc they had both?
from you rstatement i assume Swedish products were cheaper than French

or a Mirage IIII as a Fin

wow thats sexy

Yeah, real nice – though that’s Mirage 2000.

But why does it have a Draken hull number? Mirage would be MR-202 or something.

FAF wanted Mirage in early ’60s, but it was much too expensive. So MiG-21 was acquired instead. FAF considered Mirages many times, but always they were found bit too pricey.

You should consider the environment in which each aircraft was used…
Termperate/nordic european climate for the Draken vs harsh desertic conditions for the Mirage… No machine like sand.

Also to be considered is the fact that the Mirage was operated in war time, when safety is not first priority anymore.

Kovy the RAAF, which I am referring to, did not operate in sandy conditions nor in warlike operations with the Mirage. The aircraft operated from Williamtown and Butterworth for the vast majority of its life and only being operated in Darwin, a marginally sandy environment, for the last few years. Of the 116 aircraft Australia acquired they lost 43 to crashes with 14 aircrew killed…

here you go, Draken as a kangaroo

[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”draken03-jpg.250798.jpg”,”data-attachmentid”:3866693}[/ATTACH]

or a Mirage IIII as a Fin

wow thats sexy

[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”1.jpg”,”data-attachmentid”:3866694}[/ATTACH]

but really Viggen is nicer