Saab 37 Viggen was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden
Viggen translates as "Thunderbolt" or "Tufted Duck". The plain word ""[[bolt"" is ambiguous and never used in this way: the nearest we ever get is the phrase "bolt of lightning", but never "bolt" on its own. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "lightningbolt" would work as well, though "thunderbolt" inded is closer to the original language. The finite form carries significance, as that is exclusive to combat aircraft while non-combat aircraft like trainers and passenger aircraft are named in infinite form. BP OMowe (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The connection also appears doubtful due to the time scale – the Viggen's strike version only became operational in 1971, and the fighter version in 1978, by which time Polaris had already been retired"
This assumes that the US government was acting totally rationally and logically and with proper judgement and foresight, had no ulterior motives in consideration, and that they also knew in the 1960s exactly how long the Viggen would take to develop and that they would definitely have a new missile that didn't require submarines to operate off of Sweden my the time the new Swedish jet actually entered service. Idumea47b (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
