Shipbucket

The RSWN airccraft, site abit under construction

http://kustflottan.tripod.com/kustflott ... craft.html

_________________
Dieu et mon droit
Solus dux nullus ductus

Worklist
All Royal Swedish Navy units from 1522 to present

Excellent again The Sea Venom (in particular) looks right and with the Sea Vixen following perfect for the time. The site is interesting, but I'd prefer the Buccaneer to the Vigilante, the latter maybe needing a lot of conversion to suit it to an 'all-round' role

Well, the A32 Lansen and later the Aj 47 Viggen fullfills the role as the Buccaner would. The Vigilante and Canberra should be compared to something between the usual attackrole that the Lansen, Viggen or Etandard fullfills and the russian solution with Backfires and huge ASMs.

The Vigilante operates from shore bases and attack shipping far out to sea or in their bases.

_________________
Dieu et mon droit
Solus dux nullus ductus

Worklist
All Royal Swedish Navy units from 1522 to present

At first I looked at the B-58 Hustler to be used in the superheavy strike role. The would operate over the Norwegian sea and Northen atlantic like the soviet Backfires and Badgers.

The F-111 might be a better choice

_________________
Dieu et mon droit
Solus dux nullus ductus

Worklist
All Royal Swedish Navy units from 1522 to present

The Hustler was not well received in USAF service IIRC. The F-111 would have a better longevity compared though it's not a full on strategic bomber.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

The Hustler was a one trick pony - nuclear strike only, with the payload in the weapons/fuel tank pod. I do not see room to expand into any conventional role, unless Sweden developed an equivalent to the Kitchen ASM. The Hustler was also excessively high maintenance.
The Vigilante may have been been easier to re-work the wings for weapons pylons.

Bull.

There were alternate pods in development (The recon pod was very nearly deployed to Vietnam) including passenger, conventional strike, and fuel. What killed the Hustler was the switch from high level to low level strike. It ate the airframes alive.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Yeah, this was naturally a decent recon platform.

The spefcification for my AU's strategic attack aircraft is:
Able to carry either 4 asm (RB 04 or Rb 15) or 2 larger missiles like the RB 08 or Tomahawk.
MACH 2
combat range 2000km

The contestors are:
Avro Vulcan - to slow, but large
B-58 Hustler - not as flexible as wanted, only nukes

F-111
Vigilante
SAAB A36
Mirage IV
BAC TSR.2

_________________
Dieu et mon droit
Solus dux nullus ductus

Worklist
All Royal Swedish Navy units from 1522 to present

The Vigilante was a decent kite, at least in the latter recon variant with increased range; but IIRC it didn't have a conventional bomb bay, but a novel affair where the nuclear load was 'extruded' out the rear (no comments ). The wing pylons carried fuel tanks but I don't know about being wired for weapons. Out of all the contenders I would opt for either the FIII or, a developed Buccaneer: more powerful engines, stretched airframe, new wings, and avionics. I have a drawing of this if anyones interested.

I liked the Hustler, one of the most elegant looking bombers of its day, but I can see why it wore out with low level operations. Maybe over the Artic it wouldn't be such a problem if you're looking at a standoff role beyond range of Soviet shipborne sam's? I can just see a Swedish badged Hustler